My Dad flew P-39's in the 67th fighter squadron in the South Pacific. I have his military log book. the 67th was only at gradual canal for about 30 days. He claimed the 39 saved his life more than 3 times. Also he was trained in nothing but taildraggers and when they first saw the 39, All the pilots where shacking there heads and scratching their Butts! He would have been 101 this year had he lived, sadly he passed away at the young age of 50 in 1971. Great video!
Same here, same age & have his flight log too! Mine flew 120 sorties from July '43 to March '44. Great that the Airacobra in the S Pacific gets some respect. Dad liked how it flew, given its limits. The cannon jamming after a few rounds was annoying. Servicing was tough - poor conditions for everyone (mostly Fighter Two, as best I recall), even some sapper attacks at night. He gained a deep admiration for ground crews that lasted throughout his flying career (& afterwards, dealing w/ car mechanics). Earned a DFC on a mission where the flight was jumped by 10 Zeros. Wingman to the squadron commander, he stayed w/ him after he'd been hit bad (another was less damaged & quickly headed to base with cover from his wingman). Evidently it was a tricky defense ("I went straight-on after one, he broke & rolled as I passed beneath, I could see the alarmed look on his face..."). Managed to occupy them until they ran low on fuel. The SC ditched at sea near base & Dad stayed w/ him until rescue. He was big on "everyone getting home alive" (+ doing all damage possible to the enemy). Back in FL instructed ground attack / gunnery out of Tyndall in P-40s (which he enjoyed flying - trained some of the Tuskegee Airman). Even flew slot in an airshow the guys put together there. Years after, took over a squadron of Mustangs in Korea ("Truckbusters") before transitioning to jets back home. Loved the Mustang ("lotsa power & speed at altitude"). Guys like our Dads made for a different kinda parent. Sorry you lost yours so early - he did his part. best,
My Father flew the P-40, P-47 (three 109 kills), and the P-39 (after his combat tour) during WW2. He said he loved the P-39 due to the tricycle landing gear and “the cockpit door like a car”.
My mother worked at Bell building P-39s during the war, so I've always been interested in the plane. This is a very interesting and informative video about it.
Great job on this program. Another advantage of the P-39 was not just the cannon, but the fact that the twin .50's were mounted just above it, so there were none of the ranging problems associated with wing armament. Most Soviet fighters of the era were set up the same way.
@@donjones4719 the most common weapon layout was 20mm Canon in the engine and 2 7,62mm /one 12,7 above, and it was considered enough, I believe because red air force encountered mostly 1 and sometimes 2 engined frontline aviation, so even with wing MG removed, p39 was heavier armed than most alternatives
@@ВячеславФролов-д7я Excatly. The Germans tried to focus as many 109 Fritz models as it could in Europe for Barbarossa. The F model was usually 1 x 20mm and 2 x 7.92mm, all in the cowling. The P-39D/P-400 carried 1 x 20mm or 1 x 37mm, 2 x 12.7mm all in the cowling. The stripped down P-39's/P-400's were very close in weight, horsepower, and top speed as the F model.
I have to think even 2 50s with a significant ammo supply and the 20 mil with a good ammo supply but no Wing guns that's still a formidable aircraft point to nose and go bang
@@Anlushac11 I would be curious when the Army Air Force switched all of its 50 cal ammo into the explosive incendiary that they used pretty sure that's what it was to give it affect similar to Cannon but out of a 50 cal
Your technical approach opens up so much of the realities of front line combat we end up with a knowledge of the personal experiences of the pilots involved at a time when they have mostly lost their voice. Well done Greg.
I appreciate that. I did try to point out the harsh reality of the situation for the Pacific Airacobra pilots. It was really a bad situation for them in almost every possible way. All things considered, they did quite well.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles RAF BOB pilots had the same problem, killed before gaining knowledge of how to avoid being shot down. Probably vastly underrated is the flimsy undercarriage of the spitfire and 109. This had to be a big factor, vast numbers of 109s were lost oweing to this and although the spitfire was better, it was disaster for carrier use.
@@reinbeers5322 ofcouse, but as the war progressed evolution happened. Big grunty fighter with a tough wide spread undercarriage and cannon was the way to go for the average pilot.
My Dad used to say that the P-39's could fall out of the sky faster than any other plane. He said they used to control the speed going straight down with the prop pitch. I would love to fly a 39!
Chuck Yeager said that he liked the P-39. The P-400 with the 20mm could be considered better as the gun fired straighter. The 37mm was considered throwing a grapefruit as the gun had a high arc in trajectory making it hard to target. The 37mm was based upon a prewar concept of a bomber destroyer.
Really enjoyed this one, I often wondered why the P39 was so denigrated in American service compared to other planes, I will say though I've always thought this plane had an awesome shape, looks like it's made for speed.
Chuck Yeager, in his book, flew P-39's early, trained on them and liked them, having no problems, including the flat spin, he also flew one at an airshow after the war. In the Osprey book on P-39 aces, is recounted a tale by an American pilot in the Mediterranean theatre (probably southern Italy over the Balkans) encountered a Bf 109, which he shot down, stating as he had flow a 109 (captured of course) and he knew once that they engaged in turning contest he would have no trouble is disposing of it.
I recall from the book his flight mate loosing control and crashing when a wildcat flew too close while they were flying to a base while in training. Poor balance due to engine location made the plane difficult for rookie pilots.
I also recall from Chuck Yeager's book an anecdote about Yeager making a good impression on a Russian pilot at some kind of post-war diplomatic function by reminiscing about their mutual appreciation of the P-39. With typical bravado Yeager's view of the P-39 stemmed from a point of view that there are no bad airplanes......just bad pilots who don't know how to get the most out what each type has to offer.
Great job! Specifications not speculations. My speculation: The Luftwaffe had eliminated any marginal pilots from the Soviet Air Force before the Airacobra arrived.
Most Soviet aircraft were destroyed on the Ground in such numbers initially Hitler thought they were lying to him literally hundreds. Their pilots were not killed.
I think Stalin purges and other stupid things he did... May be the biggest factor in the loss of so much Russian life (both civil and military and political and normal and missing persons (but I throw that last one in because its a great band... Unlike Russia wich is a crap country back than and today too..., they haven't learned crap)) Greetings bibia
I'll stick with what the test pilots at Wright Patterson said. It was not a stable gun platform near the stall region with poor roll-yaw coupling. I'll also believe what the training units said about it tumbling and spinning, and the accident rate was 3x higher than in P-40 training units.
Another great video with good research as usual. A P-39Q won the first post war (1946) Thompson Trophy Air Race so the "39" was no slouch down low on speed. I wonder if the tricycle gear of the P-39 was a factor in the Soviet's admiration for the airplane. Operating on slick snowy or muddy fields I'd think it would make the airplane easier to handle.
I seem to remember* the USAAF had problems operating P-39s in the Aleutians in terms of ground operations. Largely due to poor airfield conditions. But this may have applied to all aircraft. US aircraft seem to have been designed with certain standards of airfield construction in mind. I do remember seeing film of aircraft in the Aleutians going through very large puddles on runways and taxiing. * this may be poor memory on my part. Or inadequate source material repeating mis-information. Primarily copies of Wings and Airpower in the 70s and early 80s. And on Wings when the History Channel wasn't obsessed with Ancient Aliens and Oak Island.
@@mpetersen6 I think all US aircraft and pilots would have difficulties on the rough fields of the Aleutians because they had no experience of operating in those conditions. Later in the war even quickly built airfields had Marston Mat. Seems the tricycle gear of the 39 would give Soviet pilots a better view to navigate rough airfields, taxi ways etc.
My Uncle flew both and was sent to Ft. Myers, FL training schools and show them how to fly it. He was a Squadron Commander of 39's guarding the Canal and Doing Sub Patrol on both sides. After that he would fly B-26's for cadets in Tampa. It is all his fault that i live in Fort Myers, Fl.
Considering manifold pressure, I've came along soviet engineers memories (yeah, not that reliable source, but with wide numbers of statements from many people) that increasing it above restricted limit was a common thing from the very arrival of the aircraft. And Considering p40, they were issued to the navy squadrons, usually in the northern sectors, and were respected from their durability, there is a documented sorty when a pilot performed two airborn rams (probably against vertical stabilizer on a tail) and managed to land his p40 of the aircraft
According to what I read, the practice of running the engines as hot as they'd physically take it was already established on P40, which they also liked fine.
@@rconger24 It was your decision to fight the Germans with Soviet blood. You could have demanded full payment in gold, like the Brits did from the Poles. No? Fine, I understand. Don't be salty after the fact, though. Fun fact: The number of theoretical hours left on a shot down engine is of very minor benefit to the war effort. That remains true even if you paid full price for it.
Yeah, well, Greg has already established that if it wasn't explicitly written in flight operational manuals it basically didn't happen, despite showing him that a P-40D made a 661 MPH powered dive and established a world record with it in 1940. So don't hold onto much hope that he'd recognize this. Dunno what world he lives in here aircraft are never pushed or modified outside of factory and operational safety limits, but it's about as realistic a paradise for crew chiefs as gumdrops and rainbows and unicorns are for toddlers.
Big difference is that the early experience with hand-me-down Spit Mk.Vs in Frontal Aviation service turned that particular force off, the later Mk.IXe they received were almost exclusively employed by the air defense PVO. Of course, that means way less frontline experiences and less pics as well.
Survival of the fittest is a phrase that makes teachers of evolution wince. Charles Darwin borrowed the phrase from Herbert Spencer, hoping a simple summary would get his idea across. Unfortunately, too many people think it means the biggest and strongest is the best, e.g. a tiger is the most fit cat. Lost is Darwin's point that fitness applies to an organism's place in the "economy of nature," what we now call an ecological niche. A cerval or ocelot is just as fit as a tiger. What I'm getting to is that too many students of warplanes don't take into account the ecological niche in which a fighter exists. Or they do, but only shallowly. Your exposition on the P-39 is one of the very best examples of how many and varied are the factors that make up the environment a fighter exists in. There are complex layers and you lay them out well. Thanks for that.
The USAAF liked to fight at high altitudes, and because the P-39 didn't have the boost needed, they decided that it sucked as a fighter. Frontovaya Aviatsiya fought mostly down low, where the P-39 excelled, so the Soviet pilots loved it and thought it was great.
Another excellent video, thanks Greg. I've always thought of the P-39 as a remarkably ingenious design that should have had far more impact than it seemed to have had. I knew about the Allison V1710's supercharger issues but poor reputation the P39 had in the west seemed a bit of a mystery. Well I reckon you've made a pretty compelling argument as to how that came about as well as with the VVS loved it. I learned a great deal from this discussion and enjoyed it immensely.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I can think of ways the Allison could gave made more power. At least for short periods. Nitrous for one. Possibly a more aggressive camshaft profile maybe. But in the end Allison should have put more effort into a two speed two stage supercharger drive sooner. I also happen to think that the Ordinance Branch and the Armored force should have considered using the Allison or the Curtis V-1570 Conqueror* as engines for armored vehicles. *providing any of the special tooling still existed. The Ford GAA was to little once armored vehicles got heavier than the Sherman. GAAs are appearing in some high end hot rods.
@@mpetersen6 A different cam wouldn't have changed anything, that's not how it works with highly boosted aircraft engine's, there's a different set of rules that there is with raising the power of an automobile engine that's normally aspirated, with something like a car changing the cam to get more power goes along with changing the RPM's that you're making peak power at, and/or that you've changed other dynamics about the engine from doing head work and changing exhaust plus the fact that you're doing away with the emission issues that the manufacturer has to engineer into the cam in the first place. With a boosted aircraft engine there's no changes you're going to make to the exhaust or the ports or anything at all like that, not even a change in air filter because there is no air filter in the first place, those aircraft engine's already had cams that were matched to what they were doing to get peak performance, exhaust changes not only wouldn't be done simply because of design constraints but wouldn't change anything anyways, boosted engine's don't react to changes in exhaust the way they do with normally aspirated engine's, unlike a normally aspirated engine the best kind of exhaust for a boosted engine is short and wide open, since the best cam profile for a highly boosted engine has very little overlap they're not affected by exhaust design like normally aspirated engine's are that use the exhaust to scavenge the cylinder and therefore need different amounts of overlap according to the RPM level that the engine is going to make peak power at, and you can't raise RPM's in an aircraft engine to make more power for a variety of reasons the biggest one being is that you can't raise propeller speed, spin the propellers any faster and they'll lose efficiency, the RPM's of those engine's were already at max for what a prop of that diameter could handle. The issue with those aircraft engine's is changes in altitude, boost levels could be raised for more power every time higher octane fuels became available but maintaining those boost levels throughout altitude changes was the issue, the Army was the only user of the Allison engine and they wouldn't pay for Allison to develop a supercharger other than a single stage single speed supercharger because they wanted turbos on everything for the 2nd stage of supercharging for medium to high altitude, the P39 and P40 both lost their superchargers to speed up development time and get them into production, the Army did eventually pay Allison to develop a 2 stage 2 speed supercharger that was for the Twin Mustang but that was because the war was over and they were losing the licensing rights to the Packard built Merlin's that were originally supposed to go in it, and since it was the dawn of the jet age no one was going to bother developing a variant of the P39 or P40 to mount a 2 stage Allison in.
@@mpetersen6 There is a feeling that GM dropped the ball in not developing the Allison more aggressively. Rolls Royce worked to throughout the war to improve the Merlin. GM worked to improve the Allison only when they could find someone to pay for it.
I read that the P-400s also suffered from a lack of oxygen for the pilots. Since they were originally built to British specs, they were built to use British built O2 canisters and the Americans didn't have any of those which fit them. So the P-400s couldn't cruise at high altitude where O2 was needed, and often ended up getting jumped by Japanese fighters from on high. i.e. Usually at a notable disadvantage in Pacific engagements.
@@kenneth9874 incorrect, it had a host of problems at high altitude that were only partially resolved by late 1944 (on the P-38 with its turbo charging system). The P-82 with aux supercharger was a maintenance nightmare in Korea and subsequently put into storage. It was the original Merlin engined P-82s that set records and was faster, more reliable.
Thank you for clearing up a lot of the questions I've wondered about over the years regarding the P39. Also the little dig at modern German design/engineering was spot on. I've bought my last German anything with wheels.
Don't be ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with German engineering. Their mistakes fail 100% of the time, as planned and outside the warrantee period. Don't forget the added "green" benifit. You don't get to choose to walk to work, you are forced too. It's a left wing European thing. They still love forced marches.
Sadly German rolling iron is throw away trash. Even in the heyday German cars were maintenance hogs like British cars...unfortunately folks today are spoiled with general maintenance extended to 100k on plugs, fuel systems lasting the life of the car (7 years or more), suspension & steering the same. Nothing much but filters & fluids brakes & rubber... Nothing like the older stuff 1940-1968.
Better late than never on German cars. They still make excellent tool like the company Bosch. Also appliances. Something went wrong with the car industry over there. Kessler is putting them out of business on luxury cars.
Thank You for covering the P-39. The P-39 is my favorite WW2 fighter. Some points... 1) The British pilots were horrified with the rear engined aircraft and were certain crash landing would result in death or critical injury from the engine flying forward or the driveshaft running under the seat. Neither proved true with the Soviets. The Brits also claimed firing the cowling guns filled the cockpit with so much smoke the pilots had to wear a oxygen mask. The Brits also claimed the Caribou I (British name for P-39) was no where close to the performance promised by Bell (That parts was true regarding high altitude performance). Thus the UK canceled their order and shipped all their P-39's to Soviets. I have not seen any mention by Soviets about smoke filling the cockpits when firing cowling guns. 2) When US entered WW2, the balance of British spec P-39's that had not shipped were requisitioned by the US Army. These were labeled P-400's by the US Army. The P-400 had centerline 20mm Hispano Suiza cannon, same one used in the P-38, 2 x 12.7mm .50cal HMG's, 4 x .303in wing mounted guns. The Soviets considered the US .30cal and Brit .303in guns a waste and removed them. Greg mentioned removal of the IFF gear, but the P-400's also came with a British oxygen system but no British oxygen masks. With the British oxygen system not compatible with US or Soviet systems the system was removed and replaced with US systems as they became available or were cannibalized from wrecked aircraft. So another limiting factor on US and Soviets high altitude ops in P-400's was a lack of a oxygen system. 3) I'm sure a lot of people know about the P-39's tumbling problem. If the P-39/P-400 got low on fuel and expended most or all of the nose ammo, a tight turn could cause the P-39 to tumble end over end. The Soviets also encountered this and after stripping all the weight they could from their P-39's they added roughly 500lbs of ballast to the nose. 4) In the Pacific, to try and improve the performance of their aircraft, US P-39/P-400 pilots started stripping everything not essential. In many cases this included the .30cal wings guns and all associated equipment. Since the P-400's were equipped with the British oxygen equipment and no masks the unusable system was removed and the P-400's operated without a oxygen system. I have read of one report where the P-400's were left at just under max limit for no O2 and could only watch as the P-40's engaged Bombers and fighters incoming in at over 20,000ft where the P-400's couldn't go. In a more amusing story, the P-400's used the same model 20mm Hispano Suiza cannon the P-38's used. When P-38's were operating off the same fields as P-400's, there was a critical shortage of spare parts for the Hispano Suiza cannons so any crash landed or otherwise disabled aircraft that could not taxi back to their repair area had to station guards at the aircraft to keep the 20mm cannons from disappearing.
Thing's like filling the cockpit with smoke happens once and it ends up becomeing a urban myth especially drunk RAF down the pub. But didn't the Brits just find the 30mph missing from promised make them poop there pants
My Uncle (Mother's brother-in-law) transitioned to fighters early in the war on the P-39. He ended up flying everything in the European Theater (200+ missions when pulled from the combat to be assigned as 'check pilot', evaluating pilots returning to duty from the invalid list), and said the Aircobra remained his favorite flying aircraft, including the P-51. He also said the version they trained on was impossible in combat, due to exactly the same, issue, the 2 cowl guns filling the cockpit with smoke if fired. I have no idea when or how this was fixed, but the Soviets used the twin .50s, and weren't dying from fighting blind from a smoke filled cockpit. Uncle also said he was the only graduate of his training group, everyone else killing themself with an unrecoverable flat spin, or bailing out of flight training and opting for Infantry, figuring they were more likely to survive ground combat than flying the P-39. His response to the fatal limits maneuvering a fighter with unfortunate combination of low moment of rotational inertia (central engine aft of cockpit) and aft CG (Note Soviet addition of up to 500# in the nose to fix this!) was to simply not fly past the limits this imposed. He claimed it the most agile plane he flew (much of which was due to low moment of rotational inertia), which may speak to his ability to find those limits, and use the layout's advantages, more than the plane's limits.
Another thing the British pilots really disliked about the P39 was the difficulty in bailing out with the doors. Imagine trying to open the door against the 200mph wind.
@@theother1281 There was a system to jettison the whole doors in case of emergency. Anyway, I understand the side doors arrangement can be disturbing for someone used to a classic canopy. Note that the some of Brits had to get over it when they converted to... the early Hawker Typhoons. 😁
Greg, I just wanted to add the P-400 designation was never used by Bell and wholly created by the USAAF to designate P-39D’s with RAF serial numbers. The serial numbers were non-sequential so the Army created the P-400 designation. Bell referred to them as P-39D-1 and P-39D-2’s. The 20mm cannon is not an indicator either. Bell delivered some 450 P-39’s of various models with 20mm cannons because 37mm cannons were not available to Bell during various times.
And field modifications were a thing, as well, but they never happened according to Greg because nothing that's not written in an official manual ever happened even if you show him evidence to the contrary. Some P-39s/P-400s had their cannons removed to save weight or because of issues with the early war Hispanos being too unreliable (or them just not having replacement parts). Just more evidence of how badly researched and done this video is.
There's a YT video on .50 cal vs 20 mm, which says the US was never successful in using 20 mm A/C cannon during the war, while the British were. Perhaps these RAF designated P-39's had British cannon?
@@hallmobility "which says the US was never successful in using 20 mm A/C cannon during the war" ...Okay, whoever made that is *_incredibly_* wrong and you should stop watching them. While it's true that American production Oerlikon FF/Hispano-Suiza HS.404s had more issues than late-war British versions that had a redesign, anyone that would call the U.S. production and use of them "never successful" shouldn't be making videos about them. The Americans also had the Becker M2/Oerlikon 20mm that had no significant reliability issues as well.
@@matchesburn Bet you can't name a single WWII US-spec'd warplane with 20mm. Just the P-400 and P-38, ordered first by the Brits and with the Brit-spec'd Hispano gun. The US efforts to adapt the Oerlikon gun for air combat ran into difficulty, that's the riff.
@@hallmobility "Bet you can't name a single WWII US-spec'd warplane with 20mm. Just the P-400 and P-38" ...Yeah, "just" those. And the F7F. And the P-61. And the P-51Bs with the 20mm cannons (and before you attempt to grow a brain and cite that these were only in British use - no, no they were not, we retained some in U.S. service). And BTD Destroyer. And the F4U-1C. And the F8F Bearcat model with the 20mms. And the SBC-2 Helldiver. Yeah. Just those two aircraft. That's it. You can go sit in the corner now, son. You earned it.
Two additional reasons why the “Kobra” did so well in Soviet service: First, the P-39’s tricycle gear was ideally suited for the very rough airstrips typical on the Eastern Front. The pilots had a clear view while taxiing, unlike the obscured sight lines of the usual, trail-dragger fighter planes. In particular, the Spitfire, with its narrow, delicate undercarriage, was out of its element on the rough, Soviet airstrips. Second, to your point about the higher experience level of Soviet pilots, the P-39 was allocated almost exclusively to the VVS’ elite, “Guard” fighter regiments.
Absolutely excellent analysis. I vaguely knew 'it wasn't good at high altitudes, and the Eastern front was fought at low altitudes' but you didn't leave a stone unturned here. Love it!
This was good, while recalling what my Dad had to say about all these USAAF fighters. He started in P-40s and went to (& stayed with) P-47s. One comment I recall about the P-39 was "...the Russians like them, send them there. They don't fight like us." Your video points that out clearly. Thanks. Fond memories of talking with Dad about the War, after Mom died and after Saving Private Ryan where they flew P-51s instead of Jugs.
I have always had a soft spot for the P-39 since building the old Airfix 1:72 scale kit, many,many years ago. Really appreciate the time and effort you have put into correcting many of the misconceptions and myths about the Airacobra.
What I particularly like about the P-39 was weapon positioning. It didn't have any issue with the convergence range we find on most wing mounted weapons. I really enjoy how many variables you take into account. I believe your systemic approach to be the better one I have come upon.
The P-39 did have to be converged. The ballistic drop of the 37mm cannon was much greater than the higher velocity 50 cal machine guns so they were converged to meet at a 100 metres or what the pilot and crew chief agreed upon. At the risk of his life Pokryskin had his cannon and 50 cal wired to fire all at the same time and his throttle rigged to give him maximum boost (about 70 "hg). He could have been executed or sent to the Goulag for having this done. The Soviet pilots stated that "you would have to be crazy to fly against a Me-109 at the rated power setting(42"hg)" They ran their engines full power, take-off to landing. They could do this because they had American 100/130 octane fuel and tough as nails Allison engines. The engines lasted about 20 hours but they were based just outside artillery range, flying from fields and roads. That gave them 20 missions. They lived in trailers and had their maintenance and radar units with them and moved almost every day, sometimes twice a day.
I'm not qualified to comment on the technical information, but I thought that I'd add that I love the historical photos that you include in your videos.
The Finns stripped every ounce of weight out of the airframe they could. Plus early on just what fighters were the Finns facing. US many of their more modern aircraft did the Soviets have in service in 1939. Was the Buffalo facing off against largely I-16s?
@@mpetersen6 they actually entered service *after* the Winter War with the Ilmavoimat, so no, they faced relatively modern Soviet types too between 41 and 45
@@cwjian90The Soviet air forces weren't really much more modern in 1941 and 42 than they were in 39 and 40. They started a massive reorganisation program between the two wars that was in no shape or form finished before the invasion of the USSR happened. The trusted mainstay fighter of the Soviet Union was still the Polikarpov I-16. The I-16 did get a significant upgrade in the Type 18 variant with an engine of 1000 hp instead of the 750 hp of the Type 5. That however didn't raise its airspeed into the 500 km/h class, still being stuck at around 460 km/h. The Finns on top of that weren't a top priority for the Soviets as their front wasn't that offensive after the advances in the winter of 1942. Thus the units facing the Finns would have probably been a lower priority after that time period.
@@mpetersen6 The early Buffalo before the Navy had armor and self sealing tanks added to it upping it's weight was supposed to be very maneuverable and have a much better rate of climb then after it got bogged down with all the add on's, Greg Boyington said that the early Buffalo's could "Turn inside of a phone booth".
hi Greg; any new on the "tube' looks like a small tail chute holder. Maybe a chute to get out of a flat spin at low altitude. still like the P-39, but you could hide the engine. Free Flight scale. The hardest part is scale flight.
Great video, thank you. One other aspect of the '39 not appreciated is that many served without ever leaving the continental US. They were advanced trainers/fighter introduction aircraft that pop up in quite a few pilot's memoirs from late-stage training. Not an unimportant role - getting low hour operators used to the airspeed and decision speed of front line aircraft.
Clarence E. "Bud" Anderson was one of those who had advanced training in the 39 before moving to 51s in England. I think the Tuskegee Airmen also flew the 39 in combat for a short period, before transitioning to the 40, 47 & 51.
"Followed on by the Super Cobra" is all that needs saying here. If the Aircraft wasn't any good why order the same idea only better? Answer that and you'll understand quite quickly why this was one of World War 2's "War Winners" absolutely and yes bringing up "tricycle landing gear" was absolutely critical as everyone knew from a combat perspective the days of using tail draggers were numbered literally from Day One during WW2 "in expectation of WW3." Tail draggers carried on to such amazing effect makes for an even far more interesting story than even this wonderful presentation given here.
Good work.... Thank you, very much...! (Saved, to my DES-SSS, DESSP, and civil defense... (Disaster and Emergency Services - Support, Systems, and Services (Disaster and Emergency Services - Support Project... (Trying to start our neutral / objective logistics / liaison Matrix NGO, for such. (While, asking folks like you, and all our millions of Vets, scattered throughout all neighborhoods, to build us an honorable, professional, SOP backbone, into our entire NGO [especially in our Operations Section], for helping us all, with mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, through the consolidation and coordination of resources: human, material, information, environmental... By giving us - all - a place for "mustering" - again - with voice and vote, on any crucial matters / issues... Through comprehensive contingencies-management capabilities... and better neighborhood [incident] management capabilities... ... To put in in 1962 wording [OCD... The former FEMA / DHS...]... ..." active and passive civil defense are integral to national security [democracy] posture." What you do is a very important part in that picture... ... Honorably... Professionally..! Standing by... Semper Fidelis...
One point to make, although extensively trained in General Chennault’s tactics and experience as advisor, to the Nationalist Chinese Air Force, the first Combat missions by the AVG (Flying Tigers) occurred in Burma after Pearl Harbor just around Christmas. The two P-40 flown by Welch and Taylor that entered combat at Pearl Harbor at a lower Altitude. The P-36 As also encountered Japanese Imperial Navy as flown by 2nd Lt Philip Rasmussen (in his Pajamas) along with 1st Lt Sterling plus 2 additional P-36A which also fought climbed to 9000 ft and dived on the Val dive bombers escorted by Zeros.
The P-36 Hawk was a good plane. A contemporary of the ill-fated Devastator, but much more able to do its job. And, IIRC... Rasmussen had his 1911 strapped on over his PJ's.
Can’t remember where I saw it but years ago I read Claire Chennault had more kills than any other American pilot but they were all while he was flying for the Chinese Air Force before he organized the AVG. I have no idea if this is true but I’ve searched the net trying to find any info on how many kills Chennault had and can find nothing. Anyone ever read anything on this?
@@bryangrote8781 I read of Chenault leading a bombing raid with the Nationalist Air Force in modified trainers. Chennault had the pilots fly so low that the ordinance shrapnel was striking the bombers, and that the pilots (were worried), to which he had replied, none of the Japanese fighters were attacking because of this. If you can find a copy of Martin Caidin's book, The Ragged, Rugged Warriors recounts some of the air fights with foreign aviators (included a former Barn Storming Stunt Pilot from the US) in China from 1937 onward. If you ever watch a Chinese movie of the early preparation, equipment and training of Chinese troops, you might be surprised that films that depict 1932 onwards have the Nationalist Forces in German Helmets with Mauser C96 (dating from 1896) in hand, sometimes in Wermacht Uniforms, all the way up to the time of the Tripartite treaty. Gen. Georg Wetzell helped plan anti-Communist operations and advised Gen. Ling during the 1932 Shanghai War against the Japanese. He also convinced Generalissimo Chiang to set up an artillery school. Chinese artillery would play a huge role years later against Japanese invaders. Gen. Hans von Seeckt, Wetzell’s successor, built Chinese capacity further. Seeckt, vividly recalling the bloody cost of static trench warfare, believed in a war of movement. He used his connections with German industrialists to bring in a huge influx of modern German equipment, ranging from helmets to artillery. One journalist suggested that as much as 60 percent of Chinese war material at this time was imported from Germany and still around when WW II started with the Sino-Japanese War, and the Soviets who had border incidents with the IJN since 1932 started to heavily support China, which began to wane with the decrease of the border conflicts and the Soviet Japanese non aggression pact of 1941.
Great video, Gregg. So happy to see your new video on the P 39. Your research and, more importantly, your insights, create amazing content. One of the great things about your videos is i know i can watch them over and over and learn something every time. Your technical approach sets a standard for all other content creators. Just outstanding. Thanks!
What an excellent windup to a discussion of a sentimental favorite plane of mine. I just redid a livery of my P-39 (1.2 Meter RC plane) in the first Bud Anderson "Old Crow" livery! I get a kick every time I fly it. Thanks for the full and fascinating discussion on this early and transitional aircraft!
Regarding experience level, I'm reminded VERY much of the fighter defense over the USS Laffey (the famous "ship that wouldn't die", and the aircraft defending her played no small part in that). Lt. Carl Rieman's four FM-2 Wildcats from Composite Squadron 94 off the USS Shamrock Bay, flown by veteran pilots (three of four) had been mock-dogfighting almost to an unusual degree, for which Rieman himself was generally responsible. He was sort of a taskmaster, but he had a reason for being one: figuring the more experience he got in the aircraft, ditto his squadronmates, the better chance they had of surviving (he wasn't wrong and also was far from a fool, helping to develop the AH-1J Cobra attack helicopter later on). He broke into two flight groups, taking his least experienced pilot after the kamikazes and bombers while his other two experienced pilots tangled with the fighters. They actually put up a pretty spectacular defense against Ki-43 Oscars and apparently some A6M5 Zeros, given that this was April 16, 1945 (Rieman reported Oscars, the guys who relieved him reported Zeros, the Japanese said they had both types operating in the area since both IJA and IJN were there, but didn't specify who had more of what). Eventually, Rieman and company signaled that they were running out of fuel with one aircraft damaged (that of Richard Collier, leading the other two-aircraft group) and they were relieved by VMF-441 flying F4U Corsairs, so obviously better planes. But much greener pilots; two of the twelve Corsair pilots actually crashed into the Laffey attempting pursuit of what they claimed were Zeros (remarkably, both survived). The pilot experience explanation is an excellent one and one that I've also wondered about myself, specifically AT Guadalcanal. The Free French also had and despised the P-39, but they were trying to use it as an anti-bomber aircraft at higher altitudes, so that's to be expected. Meanwhile, there was ONE air force that did actually plan on using P-39s as fighter-bombers in the west, and that was the Italian Air Force post-Badoglio changing sides. Unfortunately, for some reason, these guys got aircraft that had been terribly maintained and wound up losing 5-6 pilots off the top of my head due to maintenance issues alone, so obviously not a fair comparison.
Not sure how or where to request this, but I would also love to see more information about the Il-2! This is amazing stuff, Greg. You are hitting ALL the points I try to talk to people about regarding this stuff, and your work especially in the P-47 series was outstanding! Thanks for all your videos.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I have no idea how to help (besides here or patron [only patreon I've ever considered!]) But if there is any way, let me know. Huge fan of your work.
Superb content Greg. A lot of research went into this video, and it made me rethink my attitude towards the P-39. This video, and your series on the the Thunderbolt, made me reconsider these planes and their contribution to the fighting men in WWII.
"A lot of research went into this video, and it made me rethink my attitude towards the P-39." I mean... Cherrypicked research maybe. Like one of the problems I have with this video and Greg's recent mindset is him ignoring things that demonstrably happened but doesn't care because it doesn't fit the narrative he's working with. Like the idea that the P-39 had a faster dive speed than the P-40 because the flight operational manual's "Do Not Exceed" speed was lower than the P-39s. Okay. [Shows Greg documented instance of a P-40D breaking the world record for powered dive speed at 661 MPH in 1940] "Explain that." "Oh, well, it didn't happen." "Here's proof it did, in fact, happen." "Well... I'm still skeptical, and the manual says it couldn't do so (it doesn't, but whatever) and it probably wasn't something frontline aircraft could do so I'm just going to discount it." ...M'kay. That's... not how actual research works, but... okay.
What an amazing way to wake up this morning - Rain, coffee, dogs, bed, and a video on my favorite WWII aircraft by my favorite content creator! Thank you Greg!!
Well done! As the world’s biggest Spit fanboy I offer my congrats, you’ve convinced me that I’d have been better off in a 39Q on the eastern front vs a mk9LF. And there’s a case to be made that the 39 is just as pretty as the spit. I agree also about 150 octane not being available in that theater. Everything you said is well researched as usual. Good job!
I love the Iron Dog. Been waiting for this. I love flying it at low altitude in flight sims. It's formidable down low in maneuverability, energy retention, and as a gun platform.
So much relevant detail. The Soviets may have not been impressed by the Spitfire's lack of robustness compared to the P-39. The Spitfires on carriers (Seafires) suffered from an environment for which they were not suited. The P-39 had the tricycle undercarriage to deal with Soviet forward airfields. I am familiar with Soviet small arms - tough as nails.
Yep, the spit was built to be part of an integrated air defence system with plenty of friendly hard stand nearby. It had short range, needed skilled maintenance and by design was at its best at altitude. All this made it spectacularly good at defending British home airspace but totally inappropriate for Russian condtions. This is why there was no single "best" fighter in WW2 - which plane was best varied with conditions.
GREAT video! Once I started researching the P-39 for my books I saw a lot of the same things you mention here. The comparison with the Soviet use of the airplane, as opposed to the USAAF, was particularly illuminating and useful to me in my present work. Keep 'em coming!
Greg did a super job on this video. See if you can find a copy of the books written by the Soviet pilots, especially by Pokryshkin and they will add even more.
Part 2. As I said before, Pokryishkin was physically stronger than average and he invented an evasive maneuver which only a P39 was able to perform. I heard this from his subbordinate, another famous ace Tryud, in an interview long after the war. Tryud said he was the only pilot in Pokryishkin's led Air Division, who could stay on his tail in that maneuver (tha't 'cause he was also strong. Actually, they both looked almost the same in the 80's - heavy with big forearms and palms). The idea was to hide under the nose of the plane on your 6 with a high positive G while rapidly moving over to either of his wings and emerging on his tail while he is trying to find you with his nose slightly pointing downwards. I.e. the Airacobra was able to move swiftly in several directions (like a real snake) at the time when the 109 was only pulling his heavy nose down. There was another reason for a P39 to shine - "almost 300 kg" (c). Which is 660 pounds. The Russians were making the Cobra's 650 pds lighter. You mentioned the removal of wing guns and some equipment. The most of the weght lost was because of the armour. If You compare the early 39 to the later models, You will see how much armour the Bell has decreased. That's because there always was a Russian representative in the States working directly with the Bell and telling all the latest news from the frontlines (meaning what exactly the Russians want to see in the next model). The Bell corp. was litterally working for the USSR while officially the USAF was issuing all the thing "they" wanted to change. And since you have some kind of alternative history over there, I will tell You, that the Soviet Union was paying the FULL PRICE for everything he got from a lend-lease. I'll tell You more. We were payng in GOLD. That was your reqirement. Since it was a leasing it took some time to pay off. A lot of time. But we payed for everything we got. You metioned that P39 was the best allied plane in the first part of the war. Again, I'll tell You more. Airacobra was the best fighter plane over here. We held the trials including the 109 (either F or G) in the best shape possible. Cobra was a clear winner there. I know for sure that not all the Russian planes were 100% stock. There was another very famous pilot - Yeremin. He was doing recon missons in fighter planes on extremely low altitude. Anyway, they gave him the exact Yak-1B from those trials. And the plane was "specially prepared" according to the factory official. Yeremin was THAT cool (not in terms of the planes shot down) that later on the factory personnaly gave him a Yak-3 in 1943. That's way before (in war time) those Yaks saw mass production (1944).
It doesn't surprise me at all.in fact what it comes down to every time is the pilot in the seat to determine best how to exploit the airframe to an advantage!! REALLY wouldn't want a P-39 or a 190 pointing that big gun at me!!
@@chrisdavis3642 It wasn't only that big gun all alone. Before getting rid of "everything useless", Pokryishkin had all the P-39 gunnery on one button. Originally 37mm was operated by a thumb, while all the mg's - by an index finger. So when Pokryishkin pressed, all the 7 guns started talking.
Another world-class video. Which shows what is so often missed in all does this discussion. Context Matters and nobody pays attention to, other than Greg! Thank you so much for your awesome work have a nice week.
Always liked the P-39 despite its bad rep. Great looks and unique design. This is one of the most informative and surprising video you’ve done. Thanks for your great work Greg.
One thing to remember is in both the South Pacific and in Russia were at relatively low altitudes, not like the air battles over Europe. One interesting point made by Bob Hoover was he was able to get the P-39 to tumble nose-over-tail. He convinced Chuck Yeager to try it and he was able to repeat it.
If I could build a WWII style warbird replica, the P-39 Airacobra/P-63 King Cobra would be my definite choice to model it after. Such a shame this amazing aircraft gets so little love.
I really enjoyed this video. I am a P-39 fan from way back and have studied the aircraft for years, but I learned a very great deal from this video! Extremely well done!
I can give a brief overview. Increased wing thickness improves structural strength and angle of attack capability, increasing lift, but increases drag and decreases critical mach number. Increasing chord goes the opposite direction, except it still increases lift because of the increased wing area. Increased wingspan increases overall lift but complicates structural loads.
I've just been watching your presentation on the P39. It's refreshing to see some positive feedback on the airplane. It as well as the P63 were in my opinion very unique and forward thinking designs. Thank you
Greg, thank you. You have answered the questions I have had about the P-39 that have bugged me for a very long time. Thank you for the excellent analysis.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I think it goes along with the principle of "the right tool for the job". P-39 was more or less that for soviets it seems. Like you said multiple times in the video Mr. Greg, the drawbacks of that plane were not really a huge problem as the situation they were put in basically made them miniscule. The craft packed a punch, the cost also wasn't an issue and all the other factors you have recounted in the video alligned with what was needed on the front. I have to say that all the technical data presented always helps in understanding the topic, as well as various "nuances" regarding how some stuff ran in practice (lower or higher manifold pressure than assumed for example). It's an excellent video, thanks for your work.
My highschool friend's father Bill Allen, was a design engineer for Bell and worked on the P-39. He said the super charger and air scoop were too small. The turbo/supercharger on the P-38 Lightening Allison would have substantially increased the P-39 high altitude performance.
My personal favorite of the Airacobra models is probably the “stripped down” N models that removed the wing mounted guns altogether and filled in the empty space. This reduced firepower, but not by much, considering the lacking damage output of the .30 calibers later war, and in exchange, it was somewhat lighter, lower drag, and even _slightly_ better in a roll due to a bit less intertia mid-wing. Plus, on paper, the armament was still roughly on par with the Yakolevs in use at the time True, the Q model would have much more consistent firepower, but those underwing gondolas to hold the .50 cals also meant additional drag. I THINK I’ve heard that the Soviets sometimes removed those gondolas from the King Cobras as well, but I haven’t found a single good source on that yet. It sounds like something they would do, but that’s not particularly strong evidence Edit: Ah, you talked about the modifications Edit 2: iirc, the Tricycle landing gear was also popular, especially given poor Soviet runways when compared to the very smooth runways most US aircraft flew from
Even without wing-mounted armament p39 was heavier armed than most fighters on the soviet front from both sides, and afaik there weren't any complains even about standard "20mil + 2x 7.62mil" armament (but soviet shkas 7.62mm had incredibly high rate of fire)
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I use Facebook mostly to keep in touch with friends and former colleagues, but sometimes I foolishly get involved in other things.
Pokryshkin first of all spoke about the firepower of the aircraft. At the beginning of the war, they encountered very durable German aircraft - therefore, having used up ammunition without result, they often went to ram. For the same reason, machine guns were removed - they were not effective against German aircraft and they were removed to reduce weight.
Great job! I too have thought the P-39 was not able to prove itself early on. One topic on the P-400s: Besides them having 20 mm vs 37 mm cannon, different gauges, etc., the most important difference was the oxygen system. The ground support equipment could available on Cactus could not be used to service the P-400s. This limited their use at anything above 14,000 ft. I have not been able to verify the oxygen serviceability of the P-39s. Keep up the great work!
Thankyou for another interesting and informative video. I have always loved the look of the P-39 and I never realised quite how fast or manoeuvrable it was at low level and how that translated into it being so effective against Luftwaffe 109s and 190s. I really enjoyed this presentation.
Greg, you've clarified this issue like no other presenter. Now I won't be reluctant to fly the 39 in Australia or New Guinea (at low altitude simulation)!
This is the best video yet Greg, thanks. My father serviced the P39 in the Pacific as part of the joint Australian/US bases staged there (yanks had P38's, P39's, B25's and a host of others while the Aussies mainly had Beaufighters to do interdiction work). I think the Airacobra is much maligned as it was sent to do a job it wasn't specifically designed for - like sending Spitfires to escort long ranger bombers into Germany - it just won't work. The facts speak for themselves I guess, with better performance and that big cannon, ground support was the mainstay of the Soviet flying doctrine back then - and the Airacobra did it well. They should have a model of it on display with all the other WWII fighters!
Totally agree, and it's ironic that the highest scoring ace to ever fly a American aircraft (including Americans) was Soviet pilot Alexander Pokryshkin flying the P-39. It was clearly a great aircraft, when configured properly and fighting in favorable conditions. Fortunately they do have a P-39 in great condition on display in my home town of Kalamazoo at the "Kalamazoo Air-zoo". As you can see from my profile picture (that I had before this video was posted) I'm quite fond of the cobra. A truly under appreciated aircraft.
Great video. My neighbor growing up in Massachusetts worked for Bell Aircraft and helped develop this aircraft. He had several models of this plane at his house and his stories about the P-39 got me interested in WWII aircraft and model building. He was a super interesting guy, a watchmaker, ham radio operator and ended up being an engineer at Raytheon for many years. Sure wish I could remember some of our airplane conversations but it was 50 years ago. He would have loved this video that I am sure of!
P-39 D-2s were early hotrod aircobras, equipped with the 1325hp V-1710-63 that were later in the 500 and 600lbs gw heavier K and Ls. plus it retained the 37mm cannon
High Altitude Bomber Escort, was the first use of the of the 39. It was well liked on Guadalcanal. Good ground support aircraft. Flew out of Alaska in 3 Ft of water. Try that in a P-40. Only tri gear could take off.
Great video! The P-400 also had a British oxygen system, which was incompatible with US oxygen supply systems. This limited the P-400 to missions under 10,000 ft due to lack of oxygen for the pilot.
Another video from you which gives me a deeper insight into WW2 aviation technology than I ever dreamed to gain, when I first got interested in the subject as a child. Thank you very much, Greg.
I'm pretty sure several US P-39 pilots did similar amounts of damage to the Japanese on the ground as the top scoring F4Fs aviators in the air (while being shot at from every gun available and playing the bait to the enemy fighters), but they will not become famous and get all the big medals. I hope that we will get videos on fighters and attackers doing some ground pounding too, really liked the ones on the Avenger and the Beaufighter.
Excellent inclusion of all the “extra” factors that are frequently overlooked in these comparisons. Training, health and experience of pilots; combat environment, all important measures.
Great video - Loved it! Apparently this topic wasn't as hidden as Greg thought,,, yesterday on Sirius's classic radio channel I heard a "Harry Nile" detective episode written and performed in the mid-2000's that centered around the restricted WW2 sale of replacement parts for Soviet Airacobra's !!
Please make a video on the ho 229 and ho 18, I feel like the technical genius of its bell one wing design isn't explained on exactly how it works by other youtubers.
Got a lot out of this video, as I always do in regards to Greg's channel. Concerning malaria and all the other diseases that infected Guadalcanal, just about everyone got sick, not just the P39 pilots. At least the Wildcat pilots usually spent a few minutes at higher altitudes where it was cooler so some relief there, maybe?
A little more than 100k subscribers for this gold mine of a channel is a near scandal!!! I can find out so many informations in it and, more importantly, how a warplane proficiency should be assessed! Great work Greg, yours is a must channel for those who want really understand airplane's performance and their history. What can i say? Thank you! As soon i can afford it, i'll subscribe as a patreon! ,
You are the Man my friend. I love these videos and never knew I was so interested in aircraft engines, things like superchargers and how aircraft operate at different altitudes. Thank you for your work
A big part of the difference with the P-39 was the altitude it fought at. On the Eastern Front fighting was mostly at below 15,000. Chuck Yeager actually loved it. Fighter aircraft depends a lot on maneuverability. You are best on maneuverability when you are on the edge to loosing control of the aircraft. Modern jets are uncontrollable without computers. A pilot like Yeager knew how to get the aircraft to do tricks other pilots .
A couple of small nits to pick: 1) The Flying Tigers were not in combat before Pearl Harbor. First combat was over Rangoon in late (25) December 1941. 2) The planes and pilots encountered over Guadalcanal during the critical period were IJN, whose pilots were better trained, had more experience against Western pilots. Great video, keep 'em coming!
Hi Tim. 1. Please check the video description, that's been covered. 2. I'm not sure what you are pointing out in your second point. The Japanese aircraft at Guadalcanal were mostly but not entirely IJN, did I say differently? A time stamp here would help.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks for reading my comment. I did not (don't usually) read the description section. The second point was poorly written by me, I intended it to back up your point that the Japanese pilots were more experienced (and, at the time, possibly better trained) than the USAAF pilots on Guadalcanal. Most sources agree that the IJAAF pilots on the whole were not as good as their IJNAF pilots. To me the critical period was from August 7, 1942 until the Japanese decision to withdraw from the island at the end of December. If I recall correctly, the IJAAF did not become involved in the Solomons area until 1943, after the evacuation. As I said, a couple of small nits to pick in an extremely interesting, well done and information packed video.
Greg, that was a nice examination of factors and circumstances that may affect performance in combat operations vs spec sheets. You might have just said war is not a video game, and that you fight with what you have, but the more detailed discussion was very interesting. Question: Early in the video you stated that the P-40 was superior to the P-39 in turn performance. Is that statement based on technical data, on an official flight test comparison, or on anecdotal opinions of pilots? Is there any granularity with regard to rate vs radius, or instantaneous vs sustained? Thanks.
Hi Gort, good question. My statement is based on USAAF testing where they said that specifically, so did one USAAF ace, who I think I quoted in the video. Also, the P-40's stall speed is much lower, so much so that we know it's going to out turn the 39 below a certain speed. I did not do all the math to figure everything out exactly, it's just a general statement, but I'm sure it's correct. The speed number at or above the speed where the two planes will be equal is simply based on the sq. root of the stall speed times the max load factor, I used 7Gs here for pilot limitations.
Outstanding. I first read about the P-39 about 50 years ago, and wondered whether the criticisms of the aircraft were justified. It seems that some were and some weren't and it is very satisfying to learn which were and which weren't. Thank you very much!
My Dad flew P-39's in the 67th fighter squadron in the South Pacific. I have his military log book. the 67th was only at gradual canal for about 30 days. He claimed the 39 saved his life more than 3 times. Also he was trained in nothing but taildraggers and when they first saw the 39, All the pilots where shacking there heads and scratching their Butts! He would have been 101 this year had he lived, sadly he passed away at the young age of 50 in 1971. Great video!
Thanks John, I really appreciate your comment.
Same here, same age & have his flight log too! Mine flew 120 sorties from July '43 to March '44. Great that the Airacobra in the S Pacific gets some respect. Dad liked how it flew, given its limits. The cannon jamming after a few rounds was annoying. Servicing was tough - poor conditions for everyone (mostly Fighter Two, as best I recall), even some sapper attacks at night. He gained a deep admiration for ground crews that lasted throughout his flying career (& afterwards, dealing w/ car mechanics).
Earned a DFC on a mission where the flight was jumped by 10 Zeros. Wingman to the squadron commander, he stayed w/ him after he'd been hit bad (another was less damaged & quickly headed to base with cover from his wingman). Evidently it was a tricky defense ("I went straight-on after one, he broke & rolled as I passed beneath, I could see the alarmed look on his face..."). Managed to occupy them until they ran low on fuel. The SC ditched at sea near base & Dad stayed w/ him until rescue. He was big on "everyone getting home alive" (+ doing all damage possible to the enemy). Back in FL instructed ground attack / gunnery out of Tyndall in P-40s (which he enjoyed flying - trained some of the Tuskegee Airman). Even flew slot in an airshow the guys put together there. Years after, took over a squadron of Mustangs in Korea ("Truckbusters") before transitioning to jets back home. Loved the Mustang ("lotsa power & speed at altitude"). Guys like our Dads made for a different kinda parent. Sorry you lost yours so early - he did his part. best,
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Don’t know if you saw grumps comments so tagging you in case you missed it.
P.s. loving the P39 and 38 videos today.
He may have known my cousin, frank royal. He also may have met charles lindbergh!
Your dad and my grandfather might have known each other. My grandfather was a crew chief in the 67th FS.
My Father flew the P-40, P-47 (three 109 kills), and the P-39 (after his combat tour) during WW2. He said he loved the P-39 due to the tricycle landing gear and “the cockpit door like a car”.
I have been given to understand, the cockpit door like a car, was not a good design for pilots wanting to bailout in flight.
@@ccrider8483 maybe he never had to bail out?
The P-63 series are awesome planes! They came a bit late, by I'm certainly fan.
@@ccrider8483 The pilot can jettison the doors on the P-39. Bell wasn't stupid when they designed the Airacobra.
A P39 training video shows the handles that can be pulled to eject the doors in case of an emergency exit. Not a problem in a bail out.
No matter her bad reputation, she's just such a beautiful plane. It's nice to hear she actually isn't as bad as some people would believe.
Being a car guy there's something extra cool about it being mid engine. Gregs videos are great
My mother worked at Bell building P-39s during the war, so I've always been interested in the plane. This is a very interesting and informative video about it.
Big thank you to your dear mother for her work helping the war effort we could not have done it without her
There is a Ted's Hot Dogs in Phoenix.
@@thedeathwobblechannel6539I’m sure they could have.
Grateful to your mom.
Great job on this program. Another advantage of the P-39 was not just the cannon, but the fact that the twin .50's were mounted just above it, so there were none of the ranging problems associated with wing armament. Most Soviet fighters of the era were set up the same way.
That makes even more sense of why the Soviets removed the wing machine guns.
@@donjones4719 the most common weapon layout was 20mm Canon in the engine and 2 7,62mm /one 12,7 above, and it was considered enough, I believe because red air force encountered mostly 1 and sometimes 2 engined frontline aviation, so even with wing MG removed, p39 was heavier armed than most alternatives
@@ВячеславФролов-д7я Excatly. The Germans tried to focus as many 109 Fritz models as it could in Europe for Barbarossa. The F model was usually 1 x 20mm and 2 x 7.92mm, all in the cowling. The P-39D/P-400 carried 1 x 20mm or 1 x 37mm, 2 x 12.7mm all in the cowling. The stripped down P-39's/P-400's were very close in weight, horsepower, and top speed as the F model.
I have to think even 2 50s with a significant ammo supply and the 20 mil with a good ammo supply but no Wing guns that's still a formidable aircraft point to nose and go bang
@@Anlushac11 I would be curious when the Army Air Force switched all of its 50 cal ammo into the explosive incendiary that they used pretty sure that's what it was to give it affect similar to Cannon but out of a 50 cal
Your technical approach opens up so much of the realities of front line combat we end up with a knowledge of the personal experiences of the pilots involved at a time when they have mostly lost their voice. Well done Greg.
I appreciate that. I did try to point out the harsh reality of the situation for the Pacific Airacobra pilots. It was really a bad situation for them in almost every possible way. All things considered, they did quite well.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles RAF BOB pilots had the same problem, killed before gaining knowledge of how to avoid being shot down.
Probably vastly underrated is the flimsy undercarriage of the spitfire and 109. This had to be a big factor, vast numbers of 109s were lost oweing to this and although the spitfire was better, it was disaster for carrier use.
@@andrewpease3688 The 109 had a very good reason for this, though the downsides can't be argued.
@@reinbeers5322 ofcouse, but as the war progressed evolution happened. Big grunty fighter with a tough wide spread undercarriage and cannon was the way to go for the average pilot.
@@reinbeers5322 the F35 is also to light, this is a recurring theme.
Contemporary joke: “A P-400 is a P-40 with a Zero on its tail!”
Beat me to it
My Dad used to say that the P-39's could fall out of the sky faster than any other plane. He said they used to control the speed going straight down with the prop pitch. I would love to fly a 39!
Very funny!
Chuck Yeager said that he liked the P-39. The P-400 with the 20mm could be considered better as the gun fired straighter. The 37mm was considered throwing a grapefruit as the gun had a high arc in trajectory making it hard to target. The 37mm was based upon a prewar concept of a bomber destroyer.
Really enjoyed this one, I often wondered why the P39 was so denigrated in American service compared to other planes, I will say though I've always thought this plane had an awesome shape, looks like it's made for speed.
If they could have fitted the turbo supercharger it would have been awesome
@@kenneth9874 Didn't the King Cobra get that?
@@corystansbury I think so
@@kenneth9874 I actually looked on wiki after this and couldn't find anything to that effect. But it did get a two stage supercharger.
@@kenneth9874 Turbos for planes are pretty big, this was a relatively compact plane.
Chuck Yeager, in his book, flew P-39's early, trained on them and liked them, having no problems, including the flat spin, he also flew one at an airshow after the war. In the Osprey book on P-39 aces, is recounted a tale by an American pilot in the Mediterranean theatre (probably southern Italy over the Balkans)
encountered a Bf 109, which he shot down, stating as he had flow a 109 (captured of course) and he knew once that they engaged in turning contest he
would have no trouble is disposing of it.
I recall from the book his flight mate loosing control and crashing when a wildcat flew too close while they were flying to a base while in training. Poor balance due to engine location made the plane difficult for rookie pilots.
I also recall from Chuck Yeager's book an anecdote about Yeager making a good impression on a Russian pilot at some kind of post-war diplomatic function by reminiscing about their mutual appreciation of the P-39. With typical bravado Yeager's view of the P-39 stemmed from a point of view that there are no bad airplanes......just bad pilots who don't know how to get the most out what each type has to offer.
Great job! Specifications not speculations. My speculation: The Luftwaffe had eliminated any marginal pilots from the Soviet Air Force before the Airacobra arrived.
certainly a factor, I'd think.....
I like that, "specifications not speculations." May I use that on other channels if I quote you, Richard? :)
Most Soviet aircraft were destroyed on the Ground in such numbers initially Hitler thought they were lying to him literally hundreds. Their pilots were not killed.
I think Stalin purges and other stupid things he did... May be the biggest factor in the loss of so much Russian life (both civil and military and political and normal and missing persons (but I throw that last one in because its a great band... Unlike Russia wich is a crap country back than and today too..., they haven't learned crap))
Greetings bibia
The war in the air in Russia all occurred at low altitude too.
Neither the Soviet airforce or Luftwaffe used heavy high altitude bombers.
The P47 series was brilliant. This research is just as good. When a blogger lays down the facts and changes the narrative, it’s noteworthy.
I'll stick with what the test pilots at Wright Patterson said. It was not a stable gun platform near the stall region with poor roll-yaw coupling. I'll also believe what the training units said about it tumbling and spinning, and the accident rate was 3x higher than in P-40 training units.
Absolutely loved this one! Not gonna lie, it made me feel good mostly because I think the P-39 is one of the prettiest warbirds of WWII.
Another great video with good research as usual. A P-39Q won the first post war (1946) Thompson Trophy Air Race so the "39" was no slouch down low on speed. I wonder if the tricycle gear of the P-39 was a factor in the Soviet's admiration for the airplane. Operating on slick snowy or muddy fields I'd think it would make the airplane easier to handle.
I seem to remember* the USAAF had problems operating P-39s in the Aleutians in terms of ground operations. Largely due to poor airfield conditions. But this may have applied to all aircraft. US aircraft seem to have been designed with certain standards of airfield construction in mind. I do remember seeing film of aircraft in the Aleutians going through very large puddles on runways and taxiing.
* this may be poor memory on my part. Or inadequate source material repeating mis-information. Primarily copies of Wings and Airpower in the 70s and early 80s. And on Wings when the History Channel wasn't obsessed with Ancient Aliens and Oak Island.
@@mpetersen6 The Aleutians came to mind as well.
I agree and is one point that definitely had an impact on the USSR's evaluation of the P-39 vs the Spitfire.
@@mpetersen6 I think all US aircraft and pilots would have difficulties on the rough fields of the Aleutians because they had no experience of operating in those conditions. Later in the war even quickly built airfields had Marston Mat. Seems the tricycle gear of the 39 would give Soviet pilots a better view to navigate rough airfields, taxi ways etc.
@@douglascroslow5323 yes, but when did you see a Bush plane with tricycle gear?
My Uncle flew both and was sent to Ft. Myers, FL training schools and show them how to fly it. He was a Squadron Commander of 39's guarding the Canal and Doing Sub Patrol on both sides. After that he would fly B-26's for cadets in Tampa. It is all his fault that i live in Fort Myers, Fl.
Thank you so much for the great content CONRATS ONE 100K!!!
I appreciate that, I never expected to hit 100k with this type of content.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles oh, but you should. I had been imagining content like yours ever since childhood (back in the 70's and 80's).
Considering manifold pressure, I've came along soviet engineers memories (yeah, not that reliable source, but with wide numbers of statements from many people) that increasing it above restricted limit was a common thing from the very arrival of the aircraft. And Considering p40, they were issued to the navy squadrons, usually in the northern sectors, and were respected from their durability, there is a documented sorty when a pilot performed two airborn rams (probably against vertical stabilizer on a tail) and managed to land his p40 of the aircraft
According to what I read, the practice of running the engines as hot as they'd physically take it was already established on P40, which they also liked fine.
I'd imagine pilots too would push engines further when flying fighter sweeps over friendly troops than when in action over an ocean.
If I were given "free" aircraft and wanted to win, that is what I'd do.
@@rconger24 It was your decision to fight the Germans with Soviet blood. You could have demanded full payment in gold, like the Brits did from the Poles.
No? Fine, I understand. Don't be salty after the fact, though.
Fun fact: The number of theoretical hours left on a shot down engine is of very minor benefit to the war effort. That remains true even if you paid full price for it.
Yeah, well, Greg has already established that if it wasn't explicitly written in flight operational manuals it basically didn't happen, despite showing him that a P-40D made a 661 MPH powered dive and established a world record with it in 1940. So don't hold onto much hope that he'd recognize this.
Dunno what world he lives in here aircraft are never pushed or modified outside of factory and operational safety limits, but it's about as realistic a paradise for crew chiefs as gumdrops and rainbows and unicorns are for toddlers.
Spitfires were also used post war to train mig 15 pilots, giving high flight up to 40,000 ft. Still used until 1953 at least
From RR Merlin to RR Nene. Thanks comrade
Big difference is that the early experience with hand-me-down Spit Mk.Vs in Frontal Aviation service turned that particular force off, the later Mk.IXe they received were almost exclusively employed by the air defense PVO. Of course, that means way less frontline experiences and less pics as well.
Lol
Survival of the fittest is a phrase that makes teachers of evolution wince. Charles Darwin borrowed the phrase from Herbert Spencer, hoping a simple summary would get his idea across. Unfortunately, too many people think it means the biggest and strongest is the best, e.g. a tiger is the most fit cat. Lost is Darwin's point that fitness applies to an organism's place in the "economy of nature," what we now call an ecological niche. A cerval or ocelot is just as fit as a tiger.
What I'm getting to is that too many students of warplanes don't take into account the ecological niche in which a fighter exists. Or they do, but only shallowly. Your exposition on the P-39 is one of the very best examples of how many and varied are the factors that make up the environment a fighter exists in. There are complex layers and you lay them out well. Thanks for that.
The USAAF liked to fight at high altitudes, and because the P-39 didn't have the boost needed, they decided that it sucked as a fighter. Frontovaya Aviatsiya fought mostly down low, where the P-39 excelled, so the Soviet pilots loved it and thought it was great.
Always loved that P-39's small side door, like a car
I wish you could include French and Italian experiences with the '39. They used late mark Airacobras, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on their use.
Another excellent video, thanks Greg.
I've always thought of the P-39 as a remarkably ingenious design that should have had far more impact than it seemed to have had. I knew about the Allison V1710's supercharger issues but poor reputation the P39 had in the west seemed a bit of a mystery. Well I reckon you've made a pretty compelling argument as to how that came about as well as with the VVS loved it. I learned a great deal from this discussion and enjoyed it immensely.
Thanks Tim.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
I can think of ways the Allison could gave made more power. At least for short periods. Nitrous for one. Possibly a more aggressive camshaft profile maybe. But in the end Allison should have put more effort into a two speed two stage supercharger drive sooner. I also happen to think that the Ordinance Branch and the Armored force should have considered using the Allison or the Curtis V-1570 Conqueror* as engines for armored vehicles.
*providing any of the special tooling still existed. The Ford GAA was to little once armored vehicles got heavier than the Sherman. GAAs are appearing in some high end hot rods.
@@mpetersen6
A different cam wouldn't have changed anything, that's not how it works with highly boosted aircraft engine's, there's a different set of rules that there is with raising the power of an automobile engine that's normally aspirated, with something like a car changing the cam to get more power goes along with changing the RPM's that you're making peak power at, and/or that you've changed other dynamics about the engine from doing head work and changing exhaust plus the fact that you're doing away with the emission issues that the manufacturer has to engineer into the cam in the first place.
With a boosted aircraft engine there's no changes you're going to make to the exhaust or the ports or anything at all like that, not even a change in air filter because there is no air filter in the first place, those aircraft engine's already had cams that were matched to what they were doing to get peak performance, exhaust changes not only wouldn't be done simply because of design constraints but wouldn't change anything anyways, boosted engine's don't react to changes in exhaust the way they do with normally aspirated engine's, unlike a normally aspirated engine the best kind of exhaust for a boosted engine is short and wide open, since the best cam profile for a highly boosted engine has very little overlap they're not affected by exhaust design like normally aspirated engine's are that use the exhaust to scavenge the cylinder and therefore need different amounts of overlap according to the RPM level that the engine is going to make peak power at, and you can't raise RPM's in an aircraft engine to make more power for a variety of reasons the biggest one being is that you can't raise propeller speed, spin the propellers any faster and they'll lose efficiency, the RPM's of those engine's were already at max for what a prop of that diameter could handle.
The issue with those aircraft engine's is changes in altitude, boost levels could be raised for more power every time higher octane fuels became available but maintaining those boost levels throughout altitude changes was the issue, the Army was the only user of the Allison engine and they wouldn't pay for Allison to develop a supercharger other than a single stage single speed supercharger because they wanted turbos on everything for the 2nd stage of supercharging for medium to high altitude, the P39 and P40 both lost their superchargers to speed up development time and get them into production, the Army did eventually pay Allison to develop a 2 stage 2 speed supercharger that was for the Twin Mustang but that was because the war was over and they were losing the licensing rights to the Packard built Merlin's that were originally supposed to go in it, and since it was the dawn of the jet age no one was going to bother developing a variant of the P39 or P40 to mount a 2 stage Allison in.
@@dukecraig2402
Thanks.
@@mpetersen6 There is a feeling that GM dropped the ball in not developing the Allison more aggressively. Rolls Royce worked to throughout the war to improve the Merlin. GM worked to improve the Allison only when they could find someone to pay for it.
I read that the P-400s also suffered from a lack of oxygen for the pilots. Since they were originally built to British specs, they were built to use British built O2 canisters and the Americans didn't have any of those which fit them. So the P-400s couldn't cruise at high altitude where O2 was needed, and often ended up getting jumped by Japanese fighters from on high. i.e. Usually at a notable disadvantage in Pacific engagements.
That's sort of true. P-39s rarely fought above 12,000 feet so it would not be a factor all that often.
The Allison wouldn't perform much above that level anyways, so they would always be victim to the higher flying enemy.
@@bobsakamanos4469the Alison's performed great at altitude with the correct superchargers..
@@kenneth9874 incorrect, it had a host of problems at high altitude that were only partially resolved by late 1944 (on the P-38 with its turbo charging system). The P-82 with aux supercharger was a maintenance nightmare in Korea and subsequently put into storage. It was the original Merlin engined P-82s that set records and was faster, more reliable.
@@bobsakamanos4469I thought the P38 had its great high altitude performance from the start, or did they not make the turbosuperchargers until later?
Thank you for clearing up a lot of the questions I've wondered about over the years regarding the P39. Also the little dig at modern German design/engineering was spot on. I've bought my last German anything with wheels.
Don't be ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with German engineering. Their mistakes fail 100% of the time, as planned and outside the warrantee period. Don't forget the added "green" benifit. You don't get to choose to walk to work, you are forced too. It's a left wing European thing. They still love forced marches.
Sadly German rolling iron is throw away trash. Even in the heyday German cars were maintenance hogs like British cars...unfortunately folks today are spoiled with general maintenance extended to 100k on plugs, fuel systems lasting the life of the car (7 years or more), suspension & steering the same. Nothing much but filters & fluids brakes & rubber...
Nothing like the older stuff 1940-1968.
Better late than never on German cars. They still make excellent tool like the company Bosch. Also appliances. Something went wrong with the car industry over there. Kessler is putting them out of business on luxury cars.
Thank You for covering the P-39. The P-39 is my favorite WW2 fighter. Some points...
1) The British pilots were horrified with the rear engined aircraft and were certain crash landing would result in death or critical injury from the engine flying forward or the driveshaft running under the seat. Neither proved true with the Soviets. The Brits also claimed firing the cowling guns filled the cockpit with so much smoke the pilots had to wear a oxygen mask. The Brits also claimed the Caribou I (British name for P-39) was no where close to the performance promised by Bell (That parts was true regarding high altitude performance). Thus the UK canceled their order and shipped all their P-39's to Soviets. I have not seen any mention by Soviets about smoke filling the cockpits when firing cowling guns.
2) When US entered WW2, the balance of British spec P-39's that had not shipped were requisitioned by the US Army. These were labeled P-400's by the US Army. The P-400 had centerline 20mm Hispano Suiza cannon, same one used in the P-38, 2 x 12.7mm .50cal HMG's, 4 x .303in wing mounted guns. The Soviets considered the US .30cal and Brit .303in guns a waste and removed them. Greg mentioned removal of the IFF gear, but the P-400's also came with a British oxygen system but no British oxygen masks. With the British oxygen system not compatible with US or Soviet systems the system was removed and replaced with US systems as they became available or were cannibalized from wrecked aircraft. So another limiting factor on US and Soviets high altitude ops in P-400's was a lack of a oxygen system.
3) I'm sure a lot of people know about the P-39's tumbling problem. If the P-39/P-400 got low on fuel and expended most or all of the nose ammo, a tight turn could cause the P-39 to tumble end over end. The Soviets also encountered this and after stripping all the weight they could from their P-39's they added roughly 500lbs of ballast to the nose.
4) In the Pacific, to try and improve the performance of their aircraft, US P-39/P-400 pilots started stripping everything not essential. In many cases this included the .30cal wings guns and all associated equipment. Since the P-400's were equipped with the British oxygen equipment and no masks the unusable system was removed and the P-400's operated without a oxygen system. I have read of one report where the P-400's were left at just under max limit for no O2 and could only watch as the P-40's engaged Bombers and fighters incoming in at over 20,000ft where the P-400's couldn't go.
In a more amusing story, the P-400's used the same model 20mm Hispano Suiza cannon the P-38's used. When P-38's were operating off the same fields as P-400's, there was a critical shortage of spare parts for the Hispano Suiza cannons so any crash landed or otherwise disabled aircraft that could not taxi back to their repair area had to station guards at the aircraft to keep the 20mm cannons from disappearing.
Very important comments, thanks
Thing's like filling the cockpit with smoke happens once and it ends up becomeing a urban myth especially drunk RAF down the pub. But didn't the Brits just find the 30mph missing from promised make them poop there pants
My Uncle (Mother's brother-in-law) transitioned to fighters early in the war on the P-39. He ended up flying everything in the European Theater (200+ missions when pulled from the combat to be assigned as 'check pilot', evaluating pilots returning to duty from the invalid list), and said the Aircobra remained his favorite flying aircraft, including the P-51. He also said the version they trained on was impossible in combat, due to exactly the same, issue, the 2 cowl guns filling the cockpit with smoke if fired. I have no idea when or how this was fixed, but the Soviets used the twin .50s, and weren't dying from fighting blind from a smoke filled cockpit. Uncle also said he was the only graduate of his training group, everyone else killing themself with an unrecoverable flat spin, or bailing out of flight training and opting for Infantry, figuring they were more likely to survive ground combat than flying the P-39. His response to the fatal limits maneuvering a fighter with unfortunate combination of low moment of rotational inertia (central engine aft of cockpit) and aft CG (Note Soviet addition of up to 500# in the nose to fix this!) was to simply not fly past the limits this imposed. He claimed it the most agile plane he flew (much of which was due to low moment of rotational inertia), which may speak to his ability to find those limits, and use the layout's advantages, more than the plane's limits.
Another thing the British pilots really disliked about the P39 was the difficulty in bailing out with the doors. Imagine trying to open the door against the 200mph wind.
@@theother1281 There was a system to jettison the whole doors in case of emergency. Anyway, I understand the side doors arrangement can be disturbing for someone used to a classic canopy.
Note that the some of Brits had to get over it when they converted to... the early Hawker Typhoons. 😁
Greg,
I just wanted to add the P-400 designation was never used by Bell and wholly created by the USAAF to designate P-39D’s with RAF serial numbers. The serial numbers were non-sequential so the Army created the P-400 designation. Bell referred to them as P-39D-1 and P-39D-2’s. The 20mm cannon is not an indicator either. Bell delivered some 450 P-39’s of various models with 20mm cannons because 37mm cannons were not available to Bell during various times.
And field modifications were a thing, as well, but they never happened according to Greg because nothing that's not written in an official manual ever happened even if you show him evidence to the contrary. Some P-39s/P-400s had their cannons removed to save weight or because of issues with the early war Hispanos being too unreliable (or them just not having replacement parts). Just more evidence of how badly researched and done this video is.
There's a YT video on .50 cal vs 20 mm, which says the US was never successful in using 20 mm A/C cannon during the war, while the British were. Perhaps these RAF designated P-39's had British cannon?
@@hallmobility
"which says the US was never successful in using 20 mm A/C cannon during the war"
...Okay, whoever made that is *_incredibly_* wrong and you should stop watching them. While it's true that American production Oerlikon FF/Hispano-Suiza HS.404s had more issues than late-war British versions that had a redesign, anyone that would call the U.S. production and use of them "never successful" shouldn't be making videos about them. The Americans also had the Becker M2/Oerlikon 20mm that had no significant reliability issues as well.
@@matchesburn Bet you can't name a single WWII US-spec'd warplane with 20mm. Just the P-400 and P-38, ordered first by the Brits and with the Brit-spec'd Hispano gun. The US efforts to adapt the Oerlikon gun for air combat ran into difficulty, that's the riff.
@@hallmobility
"Bet you can't name a single WWII US-spec'd warplane with 20mm. Just the P-400 and P-38"
...Yeah, "just" those. And the F7F. And the P-61. And the P-51Bs with the 20mm cannons (and before you attempt to grow a brain and cite that these were only in British use - no, no they were not, we retained some in U.S. service). And BTD Destroyer. And the F4U-1C. And the F8F Bearcat model with the 20mms. And the SBC-2 Helldiver. Yeah. Just those two aircraft. That's it.
You can go sit in the corner now, son. You earned it.
Cadet here, thanks for the shoutout! I love the P-39 personally. Regardless of its records it’s just so sick looking 😂
Two additional reasons why the “Kobra” did so well in Soviet service: First, the P-39’s tricycle gear was ideally suited for the very rough airstrips typical on the Eastern Front. The pilots had a clear view while taxiing, unlike the obscured sight lines of the usual, trail-dragger fighter planes. In particular, the Spitfire, with its narrow, delicate undercarriage, was out of its element on the rough, Soviet airstrips. Second, to your point about the higher experience level of Soviet pilots, the P-39 was allocated almost exclusively to the VVS’ elite, “Guard” fighter regiments.
Absolutely excellent analysis. I vaguely knew 'it wasn't good at high altitudes, and the Eastern front was fought at low altitudes' but you didn't leave a stone unturned here. Love it!
This was good, while recalling what my Dad had to say about all these USAAF fighters. He started in P-40s and went to (& stayed with) P-47s. One comment I recall about the P-39 was "...the Russians like them, send them there. They don't fight like us." Your video points that out clearly. Thanks. Fond memories of talking with Dad about the War, after Mom died and after Saving Private Ryan where they flew P-51s instead of Jugs.
I have always had a soft spot for the P-39 since building the old Airfix 1:72 scale kit, many,many years ago. Really appreciate the time and effort you have put into correcting many of the misconceptions and myths about the Airacobra.
They have one in the Dayton Air Force museum
What I particularly like about the P-39 was weapon positioning. It didn't have any issue with the convergence range we find on most wing mounted weapons. I really enjoy how many variables you take into account. I believe your systemic approach to be the better one I have come upon.
The P-39 did have to be converged. The ballistic drop of the 37mm cannon was much greater than the higher velocity 50 cal machine guns so they were converged to meet at a 100 metres or what the pilot and crew chief agreed upon. At the risk of his life Pokryskin had his cannon and 50 cal wired to fire all at the same time and his throttle rigged to give him maximum boost (about 70 "hg). He could have been executed or sent to the Goulag for having this done. The Soviet pilots stated that "you would have to be crazy to fly against a Me-109 at the rated power setting(42"hg)" They ran their engines full power, take-off to landing. They could do this because they had American 100/130 octane fuel and tough as nails Allison engines. The engines lasted about 20 hours but they were based just outside artillery range, flying from fields and roads. That gave them 20 missions. They lived in trailers and had their maintenance and radar units with them and moved almost every day, sometimes twice a day.
@@barrettjet I believe that we use "deflection" in this case.
I'm not qualified to comment on the technical information, but I thought that I'd add that I love the historical photos that you include in your videos.
You could definitely make a similar case for another widely maligned American fighter, the Brewster Buffalo, and its performance with the Finns.
The Finns stripped every ounce of weight out of the airframe they could. Plus early on just what fighters were the Finns facing. US many of their more modern aircraft did the Soviets have in service in 1939. Was the Buffalo facing off against largely I-16s?
@@mpetersen6 they actually entered service *after* the Winter War with the Ilmavoimat, so no, they faced relatively modern Soviet types too between 41 and 45
@@cwjian90The Soviet air forces weren't really much more modern in 1941 and 42 than they were in 39 and 40.
They started a massive reorganisation program between the two wars that was in no shape or form finished before the invasion of the USSR happened.
The trusted mainstay fighter of the Soviet Union was still the Polikarpov I-16. The I-16 did get a significant upgrade in the Type 18 variant with an engine of 1000 hp instead of the 750 hp of the Type 5. That however didn't raise its airspeed into the 500 km/h class, still being stuck at around 460 km/h.
The Finns on top of that weren't a top priority for the Soviets as their front wasn't that offensive after the advances in the winter of 1942. Thus the units facing the Finns would have probably been a lower priority after that time period.
@@martijn9568 while that is true, they also would face some more modern types in that theater such as the Hurricane and the LaGG/Yak family
@@mpetersen6
The early Buffalo before the Navy had armor and self sealing tanks added to it upping it's weight was supposed to be very maneuverable and have a much better rate of climb then after it got bogged down with all the add on's, Greg Boyington said that the early Buffalo's could "Turn inside of a phone booth".
hi Greg; any new on the "tube' looks like a small tail chute holder. Maybe a chute to get out of a flat spin at low altitude. still like the P-39, but you could hide the engine. Free Flight scale. The hardest part is scale flight.
Great video, thank you. One other aspect of the '39 not appreciated is that many served without ever leaving the continental US. They were advanced trainers/fighter introduction aircraft that pop up in quite a few pilot's memoirs from late-stage training. Not an unimportant role - getting low hour operators used to the airspeed and decision speed of front line aircraft.
Clarence E. "Bud" Anderson was one of those who had advanced training in the 39 before moving to 51s in England.
I think the Tuskegee Airmen also flew the 39 in combat for a short period, before transitioning to the 40, 47 & 51.
"Followed on by the Super Cobra" is all that needs saying here. If the Aircraft wasn't any good why order the same idea only better? Answer that and you'll understand quite quickly why this was one of World War 2's "War Winners" absolutely and yes bringing up "tricycle landing gear" was absolutely critical as everyone knew from a combat perspective the days of using tail draggers were numbered literally from Day One during WW2 "in expectation of WW3." Tail draggers carried on to such amazing effect makes for an even far more interesting story than even this wonderful presentation given here.
Good work.... Thank you, very much...!
(Saved, to my DES-SSS, DESSP, and civil defense...
(Disaster and Emergency Services - Support, Systems, and Services
(Disaster and Emergency Services - Support Project...
(Trying to start our neutral / objective logistics / liaison Matrix NGO, for such.
(While, asking folks like you, and all our millions of Vets, scattered throughout all neighborhoods, to build us an honorable, professional, SOP backbone, into our entire NGO [especially in our Operations Section], for helping us all, with mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, through the consolidation and coordination of resources: human, material, information, environmental...
By giving us - all - a place for "mustering" - again - with voice and vote, on any crucial matters / issues... Through comprehensive contingencies-management capabilities... and better neighborhood [incident] management capabilities...
... To put in in 1962 wording [OCD... The former FEMA / DHS...]...
..." active and passive civil defense are integral to national security [democracy] posture."
What you do is a very important part in that picture...
... Honorably... Professionally..!
Standing by...
Semper Fidelis...
One point to make, although extensively trained in General Chennault’s tactics and experience as advisor, to the Nationalist Chinese Air Force, the first Combat missions by the AVG (Flying Tigers) occurred in Burma after Pearl Harbor just around Christmas.
The two P-40 flown by Welch and Taylor that entered combat at Pearl Harbor at a lower Altitude. The P-36 As also encountered Japanese Imperial Navy as flown by 2nd Lt Philip Rasmussen (in his Pajamas) along with 1st Lt Sterling plus 2 additional P-36A which also fought climbed to 9000 ft and dived on the Val dive bombers escorted by Zeros.
The P-36 Hawk was a good plane. A contemporary of the ill-fated Devastator, but much more able to do its job. And, IIRC...
Rasmussen had his 1911 strapped on over his PJ's.
Can’t remember where I saw it but years ago I read Claire Chennault had more kills than any other American pilot but they were all while he was flying for the Chinese Air Force before he organized the AVG. I have no idea if this is true but I’ve searched the net trying to find any info on how many kills Chennault had and can find nothing. Anyone ever read anything on this?
@@johngregory4801 I remember the sartorial reference to the 1911, too.
@@bryangrote8781 I read of Chenault leading a bombing raid with the Nationalist Air Force in modified trainers. Chennault had the pilots fly so low that the ordinance shrapnel was striking the bombers, and that the pilots (were worried), to which he had replied, none of the Japanese fighters were attacking because of this. If you can find a copy of Martin Caidin's book, The Ragged, Rugged Warriors recounts some of the air fights with foreign aviators (included a former Barn Storming Stunt Pilot from the US) in China from 1937 onward.
If you ever watch a Chinese movie of the early preparation, equipment and training of Chinese troops, you might be surprised that films that depict 1932 onwards have the Nationalist Forces in German Helmets with Mauser C96 (dating from 1896) in hand, sometimes in Wermacht Uniforms, all the way up to the time of the Tripartite treaty. Gen. Georg Wetzell helped plan anti-Communist operations and advised Gen. Ling during the 1932 Shanghai War against the Japanese. He also convinced Generalissimo Chiang to set up an artillery school. Chinese artillery would play a huge role years later against Japanese invaders.
Gen. Hans von Seeckt, Wetzell’s successor, built Chinese capacity further. Seeckt, vividly recalling the bloody cost of static trench warfare, believed in a war of movement. He used his connections with German industrialists to bring in a huge influx of modern German equipment, ranging from helmets to artillery. One journalist suggested that as much as 60 percent of Chinese war material at this time was imported from Germany and still around when WW II started with the Sino-Japanese War, and the Soviets who had border incidents with the IJN since 1932 started to heavily support China, which began to wane with the decrease of the border conflicts and the Soviet Japanese non aggression pact of 1941.
@@bryangrote8781 sounds highly dubious to me, for a couple reasons
My first Ace, Aces of the Pacific DOS version, Was flying a P-39. You can skid a 39.
Great video, Gregg. So happy to see your new video on the P 39. Your research and, more importantly, your insights, create amazing content. One of the great things about your videos is i know i can watch them over and over and learn something every time. Your technical approach sets a standard for all other content creators. Just outstanding. Thanks!
What an excellent windup to a discussion of a sentimental favorite plane of mine. I just redid a livery of my P-39 (1.2 Meter RC plane) in the first Bud Anderson "Old Crow" livery! I get a kick every time I fly it. Thanks for the full and fascinating discussion on this early and transitional aircraft!
Regarding experience level, I'm reminded VERY much of the fighter defense over the USS Laffey (the famous "ship that wouldn't die", and the aircraft defending her played no small part in that). Lt. Carl Rieman's four FM-2 Wildcats from Composite Squadron 94 off the USS Shamrock Bay, flown by veteran pilots (three of four) had been mock-dogfighting almost to an unusual degree, for which Rieman himself was generally responsible. He was sort of a taskmaster, but he had a reason for being one: figuring the more experience he got in the aircraft, ditto his squadronmates, the better chance they had of surviving (he wasn't wrong and also was far from a fool, helping to develop the AH-1J Cobra attack helicopter later on). He broke into two flight groups, taking his least experienced pilot after the kamikazes and bombers while his other two experienced pilots tangled with the fighters. They actually put up a pretty spectacular defense against Ki-43 Oscars and apparently some A6M5 Zeros, given that this was April 16, 1945 (Rieman reported Oscars, the guys who relieved him reported Zeros, the Japanese said they had both types operating in the area since both IJA and IJN were there, but didn't specify who had more of what). Eventually, Rieman and company signaled that they were running out of fuel with one aircraft damaged (that of Richard Collier, leading the other two-aircraft group) and they were relieved by VMF-441 flying F4U Corsairs, so obviously better planes. But much greener pilots; two of the twelve Corsair pilots actually crashed into the Laffey attempting pursuit of what they claimed were Zeros (remarkably, both survived). The pilot experience explanation is an excellent one and one that I've also wondered about myself, specifically AT Guadalcanal.
The Free French also had and despised the P-39, but they were trying to use it as an anti-bomber aircraft at higher altitudes, so that's to be expected. Meanwhile, there was ONE air force that did actually plan on using P-39s as fighter-bombers in the west, and that was the Italian Air Force post-Badoglio changing sides. Unfortunately, for some reason, these guys got aircraft that had been terribly maintained and wound up losing 5-6 pilots off the top of my head due to maintenance issues alone, so obviously not a fair comparison.
Not sure how or where to request this, but I would also love to see more information about the Il-2! This is amazing stuff, Greg. You are hitting ALL the points I try to talk to people about regarding this stuff, and your work especially in the P-47 series was outstanding! Thanks for all your videos.
Thanks Sean. I'll try to work in the IL2.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I have no idea how to help (besides here or patron [only patreon I've ever considered!]) But if there is any way, let me know. Huge fan of your work.
Superb content Greg. A lot of research went into this video, and it made me rethink my attitude towards the P-39. This video, and your series on the the Thunderbolt, made me reconsider these planes and their contribution to the fighting men in WWII.
"A lot of research went into this video, and it made me rethink my attitude towards the P-39."
I mean... Cherrypicked research maybe. Like one of the problems I have with this video and Greg's recent mindset is him ignoring things that demonstrably happened but doesn't care because it doesn't fit the narrative he's working with. Like the idea that the P-39 had a faster dive speed than the P-40 because the flight operational manual's "Do Not Exceed" speed was lower than the P-39s. Okay. [Shows Greg documented instance of a P-40D breaking the world record for powered dive speed at 661 MPH in 1940] "Explain that." "Oh, well, it didn't happen." "Here's proof it did, in fact, happen." "Well... I'm still skeptical, and the manual says it couldn't do so (it doesn't, but whatever) and it probably wasn't something frontline aircraft could do so I'm just going to discount it."
...M'kay. That's... not how actual research works, but... okay.
What an amazing way to wake up this morning - Rain, coffee, dogs, bed, and a video on my favorite WWII aircraft by my favorite content creator! Thank you Greg!!
That's Eric, I'm glad you had a nice morning.
Another fascinating Greg Deep Dive of the kind that apparently brings 100k subscribers. Congrats for that.
Well done!
As the world’s biggest Spit fanboy I offer my congrats, you’ve convinced me that I’d have been better off in a 39Q on the eastern front vs a mk9LF.
And there’s a case to be made that the 39 is just as pretty as the spit.
I agree also about 150 octane not being available in that theater.
Everything you said is well researched as usual. Good job!
I love the Iron Dog. Been waiting for this. I love flying it at low altitude in flight sims. It's formidable down low in maneuverability, energy retention, and as a gun platform.
My instructor used to fly Aircobra in Soviet AF and did shot down six FW-190. He also was shot down in 1945 and spent 2 months in POW camp.
So much relevant detail. The Soviets may have not been impressed by the Spitfire's lack of robustness compared to the P-39. The Spitfires on carriers (Seafires) suffered from an environment for which they were not suited. The P-39 had the tricycle undercarriage to deal with Soviet forward airfields. I am familiar with Soviet small arms - tough as nails.
Yep, the spit was built to be part of an integrated air defence system with plenty of friendly hard stand nearby. It had short range, needed skilled maintenance and by design was at its best at altitude. All this made it spectacularly good at defending British home airspace but totally inappropriate for Russian condtions. This is why there was no single "best" fighter in WW2 - which plane was best varied with conditions.
GREAT video! Once I started researching the P-39 for my books I saw a lot of the same things you mention here. The comparison with the Soviet use of the airplane, as opposed to the USAAF, was particularly illuminating and useful to me in my present work. Keep 'em coming!
Thanks Tom, I appreciate that, especially coming from you.
Greg did a super job on this video. See if you can find a copy of the books written by the Soviet pilots, especially by Pokryshkin and they will add even more.
Part 2.
As I said before, Pokryishkin was physically stronger than average and he invented an evasive maneuver which only a P39 was able to perform. I heard this from his subbordinate, another famous ace Tryud, in an interview long after the war. Tryud said he was the only pilot in Pokryishkin's led Air Division, who could stay on his tail in that maneuver (tha't 'cause he was also strong. Actually, they both looked almost the same in the 80's - heavy with big forearms and palms).
The idea was to hide under the nose of the plane on your 6 with a high positive G while rapidly moving over to either of his wings and emerging on his tail while he is trying to find you with his nose slightly pointing downwards.
I.e. the Airacobra was able to move swiftly in several directions (like a real snake) at the time when the 109 was only pulling his heavy nose down.
There was another reason for a P39 to shine - "almost 300 kg" (c). Which is 660 pounds. The Russians were making the Cobra's 650 pds lighter. You mentioned the removal of wing guns and some equipment. The most of the weght lost was because of the armour. If You compare the early 39 to the later models, You will see how much armour the Bell has decreased. That's because there always was a Russian representative in the States working directly with the Bell and telling all the latest news from the frontlines (meaning what exactly the Russians want to see in the next model). The Bell corp. was litterally working for the USSR while officially the USAF was issuing all the thing "they" wanted to change.
And since you have some kind of alternative history over there, I will tell You, that the Soviet Union was paying the FULL PRICE for everything he got from a lend-lease. I'll tell You more. We were payng in GOLD. That was your reqirement.
Since it was a leasing it took some time to pay off. A lot of time. But we payed for everything we got.
You metioned that P39 was the best allied plane in the first part of the war. Again, I'll tell You more. Airacobra was the best fighter plane over here. We held the trials including the 109 (either F or G) in the best shape possible. Cobra was a clear winner there.
I know for sure that not all the Russian planes were 100% stock. There was another very famous pilot - Yeremin. He was doing recon missons in fighter planes on extremely low altitude. Anyway, they gave him the exact Yak-1B from those trials. And the plane was "specially prepared" according to the factory official.
Yeremin was THAT cool (not in terms of the planes shot down) that later on the factory personnaly gave him a Yak-3 in 1943. That's way before (in war time) those Yaks saw mass production (1944).
It's figured at 10c on the dollar
I didn't think the Russians paid back anything for "lend lease".
It doesn't surprise me at all.in fact what it comes down to every time is the pilot in the seat to determine best how to exploit the airframe to an advantage!! REALLY wouldn't want a P-39 or a 190 pointing that big gun at me!!
@@chrisdavis3642 It wasn't only that big gun all alone. Before getting rid of "everything useless", Pokryishkin had all the P-39 gunnery on one button.
Originally 37mm was operated by a thumb, while all the mg's - by an index finger.
So when Pokryishkin pressed, all the 7 guns started talking.
@@phann860in blood they paid thousand times more than your comfy factory workers in sweat.
Great one, Greg! And btw. there is no way one of your videos could ever be too long...!
Thanks Rob.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Hear, hear!
Another world-class video. Which shows what is so often missed in all does this discussion. Context Matters and nobody pays attention to, other than Greg! Thank you so much for your awesome work have a nice week.
Always liked the P-39 despite its bad rep. Great looks and unique design. This is one of the most informative and surprising video you’ve done. Thanks for your great work Greg.
One thing to remember is in both the South Pacific and in Russia were at relatively low altitudes, not like the air battles over Europe.
One interesting point made by Bob Hoover was he was able to get the P-39 to tumble nose-over-tail. He convinced Chuck Yeager to try it and he was able to repeat it.
I’ve liked the p-39 since I first saw it at the Dayton Air Force Museum (it’s an amazing museum)
If I could build a WWII style warbird replica, the P-39 Airacobra/P-63 King Cobra would be my definite choice to model it after. Such a shame this amazing aircraft gets so little love.
I really enjoyed this video. I am a P-39 fan from way back and have studied the aircraft for years, but I learned a very great deal from this video! Extremely well done!
Would love a deep-dive on the design elements beyond wing-loading that contribute to turn performance
I can give a brief overview.
Increased wing thickness improves structural strength and angle of attack capability, increasing lift, but increases drag and decreases critical mach number.
Increasing chord goes the opposite direction, except it still increases lift because of the increased wing area.
Increased wingspan increases overall lift but complicates structural loads.
I've just been watching your presentation on the P39. It's refreshing to see some positive feedback on the airplane. It as well as the P63 were in my opinion very unique and forward thinking designs. Thank you
Greg, thank you. You have answered the questions I have had about the P-39 that have bugged me for a very long time. Thank you for the excellent analysis.
Good video. Shows how complex combinations of factors dramatically alter how a plane performs and is perceived.
Excellent video greg. completely changed alot of my preexisting notions about the p39 and its wartime performance.
Hello friend, nice build, nice weathering! Im getting back into this hobby after some decades. Videos like yours really help me out. Thank you sir!
The P-400 was nicknamed "A P-40 with a Zero on it's tail." Whether or not it's fair, it's still my favorite nickname!
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I think it goes along with the principle of "the right tool for the job".
P-39 was more or less that for soviets it seems. Like you said multiple times in the video Mr. Greg, the drawbacks of that plane were not really a huge problem as the situation they were put in basically made them miniscule. The craft packed a punch, the cost also wasn't an issue and all the other factors you have recounted in the video alligned with what was needed on the front. I have to say that all the technical data presented always helps in understanding the topic, as well as various "nuances" regarding how some stuff ran in practice (lower or higher manifold pressure than assumed for example). It's an excellent video, thanks for your work.
My highschool friend's father Bill Allen, was a design engineer for Bell and worked on the P-39. He said the super charger and air scoop were too small. The turbo/supercharger on the P-38 Lightening Allison would have substantially increased the P-39 high altitude performance.
Interesting hearing the details. Thanks for doing the research.
I’ve recently fallen in love with the P-63 and P-39s, I don’t know why, but I have this inert interest that I can’t explain.
underdog effect most likely. I understand it
The Cobra has perfect proportions for a RC model. Stable and aerobatic,, I even let others fly mine which I never do with other warbirds.
Cheers!
My personal favorite of the Airacobra models is probably the “stripped down” N models that removed the wing mounted guns altogether and filled in the empty space. This reduced firepower, but not by much, considering the lacking damage output of the .30 calibers later war, and in exchange, it was somewhat lighter, lower drag, and even _slightly_ better in a roll due to a bit less intertia mid-wing. Plus, on paper, the armament was still roughly on par with the Yakolevs in use at the time
True, the Q model would have much more consistent firepower, but those underwing gondolas to hold the .50 cals also meant additional drag.
I THINK I’ve heard that the Soviets sometimes removed those gondolas from the King Cobras as well, but I haven’t found a single good source on that yet. It sounds like something they would do, but that’s not particularly strong evidence
Edit: Ah, you talked about the modifications
Edit 2: iirc, the Tricycle landing gear was also popular, especially given poor Soviet runways when compared to the very smooth runways most US aircraft flew from
Even without wing-mounted armament p39 was heavier armed than most fighters on the soviet front from both sides, and afaik there weren't any complains even about standard "20mil + 2x 7.62mil" armament (but soviet shkas 7.62mm had incredibly high rate of fire)
I just linked this to a very frustrating discussion on Facebook. I hope some of the participants get through it, but I’m not optimistic.
Best of luck, I'm not on facebook, so I have no idea what goes on there.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I use Facebook mostly to keep in touch with friends and former colleagues, but sometimes I foolishly get involved in other things.
Outstanding analysis on the p-39. I always wondered why it got a bad rap here in the states while it was lauded in the soviet military.
There were better performance planes and in aerial superiority, the 2nd place guy often doesn't come home.
@@danweyant707Rip 109 pilots
Pokryshkin first of all spoke about the firepower of the aircraft. At the beginning of the war, they encountered very durable German aircraft - therefore, having used up ammunition without result, they often went to ram. For the same reason, machine guns were removed - they were not effective against German aircraft and they were removed to reduce weight.
@@wertsatr294 SMH WarThunder Players
Great job! I too have thought the P-39 was not able to prove itself early on.
One topic on the P-400s: Besides them having 20 mm vs 37 mm cannon, different gauges, etc., the most important difference was the oxygen system. The ground support equipment could available on Cactus could not be used to service the P-400s. This limited their use at anything above 14,000 ft. I have not been able to verify the oxygen serviceability of the P-39s. Keep up the great work!
Most interesting and well presented as usual. The more I learn about the P-39 the more fascinated by it I get, mostly thanks to these videos.
Greg, I greatly appreciate this channel, probably the most authoritative and well researched channels of its kind.
Thankyou for another interesting and informative video. I have always loved the look of the P-39 and I never realised quite how fast or manoeuvrable it was at low level and how that translated into it being so effective against Luftwaffe 109s and 190s.
I really enjoyed this presentation.
Greg, you've clarified this issue like no other presenter. Now I won't be reluctant to fly the 39 in Australia or New Guinea (at low altitude simulation)!
This is the best video yet Greg, thanks. My father serviced the P39 in the Pacific as part of the joint Australian/US bases staged there (yanks had P38's, P39's, B25's and a host of others while the Aussies mainly had Beaufighters to do interdiction work). I think the Airacobra is much maligned as it was sent to do a job it wasn't specifically designed for - like sending Spitfires to escort long ranger bombers into Germany - it just won't work. The facts speak for themselves I guess, with better performance and that big cannon, ground support was the mainstay of the Soviet flying doctrine back then - and the Airacobra did it well. They should have a model of it on display with all the other WWII fighters!
Totally agree, and it's ironic that the highest scoring ace to ever fly a American aircraft (including Americans) was Soviet pilot Alexander Pokryshkin flying the P-39. It was clearly a great aircraft, when configured properly and fighting in favorable conditions. Fortunately they do have a P-39 in great condition on display in my home town of Kalamazoo at the "Kalamazoo Air-zoo". As you can see from my profile picture (that I had before this video was posted) I'm quite fond of the cobra. A truly under appreciated aircraft.
Great video. My neighbor growing up in Massachusetts worked for Bell Aircraft and helped develop this aircraft. He had several models of this plane at his house and his stories about the P-39 got me interested in WWII aircraft and model building. He was a super interesting guy, a watchmaker, ham radio operator and ended up being an engineer at Raytheon for many years. Sure wish I could remember some of our airplane conversations but it was 50 years ago. He would have loved this video that I am sure of!
P-39 D-2s were early hotrod aircobras, equipped with the 1325hp V-1710-63 that were later in the 500 and 600lbs gw heavier K and Ls. plus it retained the 37mm cannon
High Altitude Bomber Escort, was the first use of the of the 39. It was well liked on Guadalcanal. Good ground support aircraft. Flew out of Alaska in 3 Ft of water. Try that in a P-40. Only tri gear could take off.
Great video! The P-400 also had a British oxygen system, which was incompatible with US oxygen supply systems. This limited the P-400 to missions under 10,000 ft due to lack of oxygen for the pilot.
Another video from you which gives me a deeper insight into WW2 aviation technology than I ever dreamed to gain, when I first got interested in the subject as a child. Thank you very much, Greg.
I'm pretty sure several US P-39 pilots did similar amounts of damage to the Japanese on the ground as the top scoring F4Fs aviators in the air (while being shot at from every gun available and playing the bait to the enemy fighters), but they will not become famous and get all the big medals. I hope that we will get videos on fighters and attackers doing some ground pounding too, really liked the ones on the Avenger and the Beaufighter.
Excellent inclusion of all the “extra” factors that are frequently overlooked in these comparisons. Training, health and experience of pilots; combat environment, all important measures.
Do the F2A Buffalo use by Finnish Air Force, their performance in US use wasn't that good, but with the Finns they were good.
Great video - Loved it!
Apparently this topic wasn't as hidden as Greg thought,,, yesterday on Sirius's classic radio channel I heard a "Harry Nile" detective episode written and performed in the mid-2000's that centered around the restricted WW2 sale of replacement parts for Soviet Airacobra's !!
Please make a video on the ho 229 and ho 18, I feel like the technical genius of its bell one wing design isn't explained on exactly how it works by other youtubers.
Another great video Greg. I knew the P-39 was in its element @ low alt, but I had no idea it could best the 109G down in the weeds.
Got a lot out of this video, as I always do in regards to Greg's channel. Concerning malaria and all the other diseases that infected Guadalcanal, just about everyone got sick, not just the P39 pilots. At least the Wildcat pilots usually spent a few minutes at higher altitudes where it was cooler so some relief there, maybe?
Yes, everyone got sick, pilots of all types, mechanics, infantry, everyone.
A little more than 100k subscribers for this gold mine of a channel is a near scandal!!! I can find out so many informations in it and, more importantly, how a warplane proficiency should be assessed! Great work Greg, yours is a must channel for those who want really understand airplane's performance and their history. What can i say? Thank you! As soon i can afford it, i'll subscribe as a patreon! ,
Thanks Riccardo.
Would be curious to see differences between the P39 and the P63.
You are the Man my friend. I love these videos and never knew I was so interested in aircraft engines, things like superchargers and how aircraft operate at different altitudes. Thank you for your work
A big part of the difference with the P-39 was the altitude it fought at. On the Eastern Front fighting was mostly at below 15,000.
Chuck Yeager actually loved it. Fighter aircraft depends a lot on maneuverability. You are best on maneuverability when you are on the edge to loosing control of the aircraft. Modern jets are uncontrollable without computers. A pilot like Yeager knew how to get the aircraft to do tricks other pilots .
A couple of small nits to pick:
1) The Flying Tigers were not in combat before Pearl Harbor. First combat was over Rangoon in late (25) December 1941.
2) The planes and pilots encountered over Guadalcanal during the critical period were IJN, whose pilots were better trained, had more experience against Western pilots.
Great video, keep 'em coming!
Hi Tim. 1. Please check the video description, that's been covered. 2. I'm not sure what you are pointing out in your second point. The Japanese aircraft at Guadalcanal were mostly but not entirely IJN, did I say differently? A time stamp here would help.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks for reading my comment. I did not (don't usually) read the description section. The second point was poorly written by me, I intended it to back up your point that the Japanese pilots were more experienced (and, at the time, possibly better trained) than the USAAF pilots on Guadalcanal. Most sources agree that the IJAAF pilots on the whole were not as good as their IJNAF pilots. To me the critical period was from August 7, 1942 until the Japanese decision to withdraw from the island at the end of December. If I recall correctly, the IJAAF did not become involved in the Solomons area until 1943, after the evacuation.
As I said, a couple of small nits to pick in an extremely interesting, well done and information packed video.
That makes sense, thanks for viewing and commenting, I do appreciate it. As a general rule I do try to read every comment and respond to many of them.
Greg, that was a nice examination of factors and circumstances that may affect performance in combat operations vs spec sheets. You might have just said war is not a video game, and that you fight with what you have, but the more detailed discussion was very interesting.
Question: Early in the video you stated that the P-40 was superior to the P-39 in turn performance. Is that statement based on technical data, on an official flight test comparison, or on anecdotal opinions of pilots? Is there any granularity with regard to rate vs radius, or instantaneous vs sustained? Thanks.
Hi Gort, good question. My statement is based on USAAF testing where they said that specifically, so did one USAAF ace, who I think I quoted in the video. Also, the P-40's stall speed is much lower, so much so that we know it's going to out turn the 39 below a certain speed. I did not do all the math to figure everything out exactly, it's just a general statement, but I'm sure it's correct. The speed number at or above the speed where the two planes will be equal is simply based on the sq. root of the stall speed times the max load factor, I used 7Gs here for pilot limitations.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks for the additional info, Greg.
Outstanding. I first read about the P-39 about 50 years ago, and wondered whether the criticisms of the aircraft were justified. It seems that some were and some weren't and it is very satisfying to learn which were and which weren't. Thank you very much!
If you gave P-40s to all those USAAF units with P-39's their combat records would have been the same. It's the indian, not the arrow.
Thank you for the work and information. Well done. I always thought the p-39 as well as the p-40 were the most beautiful lines on any WW2 a/c