PDA

View Full Version : Should a P-39 outrun a 190?



XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 03:54 PM
Adding more fuel to this fire, the recent post by skychimp had me remembering a mission I played (it was a stock IL-2 mission, can't remember which one) where it was 2 190's against 2 P-39's, player was 190. Unfortunately I can't remember types, but since it was a stock mission, they are probably the same time era, i.e. 1942 plane vs 1942 plane.

The one P-39 was shooting up my wingman. I closed on him and got to about I think 300 or 400 meters and fired a few shots to scare him off. I managed a few hits, but my wingman was already toast. Altitude was say 2000 meters give or take. Once the P-39 realized he was being shot, he floored it and completely outran me in level flight, with a fairly high rate of negative closure. I was full throttle, clean config (no flaps etc), full WEP if the 190 had it and it wasn't even close. He was at 600 meters before I could sneeze, and this is given I was closing in on him just a few seconds earlier.

Seemed odd to me.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 03:54 PM
Adding more fuel to this fire, the recent post by skychimp had me remembering a mission I played (it was a stock IL-2 mission, can't remember which one) where it was 2 190's against 2 P-39's, player was 190. Unfortunately I can't remember types, but since it was a stock mission, they are probably the same time era, i.e. 1942 plane vs 1942 plane.

The one P-39 was shooting up my wingman. I closed on him and got to about I think 300 or 400 meters and fired a few shots to scare him off. I managed a few hits, but my wingman was already toast. Altitude was say 2000 meters give or take. Once the P-39 realized he was being shot, he floored it and completely outran me in level flight, with a fairly high rate of negative closure. I was full throttle, clean config (no flaps etc), full WEP if the 190 had it and it wasn't even close. He was at 600 meters before I could sneeze, and this is given I was closing in on him just a few seconds earlier.

Seemed odd to me.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:00 PM
Which version of P-39 and which version of FW-190?

Despite what you might have heard the P-39 was a good turner.


<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif

<center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Warning: My intense sense of humor may tug at the stick crammed in your shaded spot.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">If you treasure your lack of humor please refrain from reading my posts as they may cause laughter.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Heaven Forbid.</table style></center>
<table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=1)">
<font size=+2><font color="black">Still loving my P-39</font></font> </table style>
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
<table style="filter:glow[color=green,strength=4)"> www.blitzpigs.com</center> (http://www.blitzpigs.com</center>) </table style>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:13 PM
Make sure your cowl is closed and run at WEP and 105% throttle (any more than 105% with auto prop pitch will slow you down)

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

Message Edited on 07/23/0311:35AM by RayBanJockey

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:16 PM
Not that I agree with all you say gemini, I have to say I did some reading on the p-39. This pilot said that it was the best climbing aircraft the americans had, below 12000ft. He said once that barrier was reached, it was like hitting a brick wall. It then took forever to climb higher. He also said it was a good turner, but he had to admit that its disadvantages far outweighted its advantages.

He also said maneuverability above 12k was bad and when he encountered zeros, he dove for his life cause the zero could not follow. He said it was worthless above 15k, but in this sim most combats are below that so the 39s advantages in maneuver and climb are apparent. He also said he approached mach 1 in a dive, so your statement could be correct.

http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~wingman/pics/g50bis_2.jpg

caccia buon

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:21 PM
tmdgm1 wrote:
- Adding more fuel to this fire, the recent post by
- skychimp had me remembering a mission I played (it
- was a stock IL-2 mission, can't remember which one)
- where it was 2 190's against 2 P-39's, player was
- 190. Unfortunately I can't remember types, but
- since it was a stock mission, they are probably the
- same time era, i.e. 1942 plane vs 1942 plane.
-
- The one P-39 was shooting up my wingman. I closed
- on him and got to about I think 300 or 400 meters
- and fired a few shots to scare him off. I managed a
- few hits, but my wingman was already toast.
- Altitude was say 2000 meters give or take. Once the
- P-39 realized he was being shot, he floored it and
- completely outran me in level flight, with a fairly
- high rate of negative closure. I was full throttle,
- clean config (no flaps etc), full WEP if the 190 had
- it and it wasn't even close. He was at 600 meters
- before I could sneeze, and this is given I was
- closing in on him just a few seconds earlier.


Yes P-39N&Q outturns Fw-190A regardless of version (if both planes carry the same fuel load). But difference was not that marked as it is right now in FB (22 sec vs 23-24 sec for 360 sustained turn at full fuel load - if Fw190 had ouboard cannons removed the difference was even smaller).



Message Edited on 07/23/0310:24AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:24 PM
There is no way a P-39 is as fast as a Fw190. Climb as good? Yes. Top speed? Nope. Not in IL2, Fb pre patch, or post patch. If you couldn't catch it. You were doing something wrong.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:29 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- There is no way a P-39 is as fast as a Fw190. Climb
- as good? Yes. Top speed? Nope. Not in IL2, Fb pre
- patch, or post patch. If you couldn't catch it. You
- were doing something wrong.


Sometimes it may hard to catch because the P-39 acceleration is off. It accelerates right now as a Bf-109G which is wrong. But let's take them in order. First I'll post data on climb, them maybe on acceleration (plus dive and zoom climb) and turn. It is quite a big task, but I'll post them one by one.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:29 PM
I assume you're talking about an AI P39, which means a simplified flight model. this is similar to the problem of trying to keep up with your flight when you first take off for a mission in career mode.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/rcafpost.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:35 PM
Huck,

Why don't you wait for final patch. things may change, and there's no sense getting all excited about it now.


btw.. Your going to have to come up with some documents if your going to say it's wrong../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:42 PM
The Airacobra is far superrior in turns, but once you've stalled, the 190's superrior again, 'cause she'll recover much faster. Dive acceleration's supposed be on 190's side, just like diving and horizontal speed.

Both planes are relatively even in climb.

The 190 has the clear advantage when fighting with high speeds while the P-39's the better low-speed fighter. Both planes have a victious stall at high AoA's.

The armament of both planes is very deadly, but I like the combination of 4 20mm canons and two 7,9/13mm MGs more than the P-39's wild ammo mix (for N-1 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ).

But in the end: the one with the better innitial position and the one using the better tactics will survive a fight between those planes although the Fw190's the more modern plane and may have the better chances.

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.chrissi007.de/jabog32)

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

http://www.jg68.de.vu

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:43 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Huck,
-
- Why don't you wait for final patch. things may
- change, and there's no sense getting all excited
- about it now.


There were no sistematic tests for sustained turns other than russian tests. Of course german planes perform a bit poorer than planes in russian service (especially because the lack of familiarity with the planes). So when you see in test 19.5 sec read 18.5 sec if it is a plane not in russian service. Sustained turns can be calculated, (though not really easy, like climb or acceleration) so we can confront them with the values obtained in tests.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:45 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- There is no way a P-39 is as fast as a Fw190. Climb
- as good? Yes. Top speed? Nope. Not in IL2, Fb pre
- patch, or post patch. If you couldn't catch it. You
- were doing something wrong.

Actually in IL2 the P-39Q-10('44) could do 546 km/h at sea level, but the FW-190 A-4 ('42) could only do 540 km/h at sea level. The Q-10 was faster than the A-4 below 6000m and at 4000m was 75km/h faster than the A-4 as well.



RayBanJockey wrote:
- Make sure your cowl is closed and run at WEP and
- 105% throttle (any more than 105% with auto prop
- pitch will slow you down)


I believe I have solved the original posters problem. He was probably running with WEP, auto pitch, and 110% throttle, which is much slower than 105% throttle.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:47 PM
Huck,

Keep in mind that the Russians lightened the P-39 quite abit. Any tests by anybody but the Russians will be off. I think this is the biggest problem when everybody talks about the P-39. Oleg knows the Russians took most of the armor, and some of the guns to lighten it up This is the model we get in FB.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:55 PM
mike_espo wrote:
- Not that I agree with all you say gemini, I have to
- say I did some reading on the p-39. This pilot said
- that it was the best climbing aircraft the americans
- had, below 12000ft. He said once that barrier was
- reached, it was like hitting a brick wall. It then
- took forever to climb higher. He also said it was a
- good turner, but he had to admit that its
- disadvantages far outweighted its advantages.
-
- He also said maneuverability above 12k was bad and
- when he encountered zeros, he dove for his life
- cause the zero could not follow. He said it was
- worthless above 15k, but in this sim most combats
- are below that so the 39s advantages in maneuver and
- climb are apparent. He also said he approached mach
- 1 in a dive, so your statement could be correct.


That points towards what I always thought of the P-39. She's been underrated by most down low but up high she performs about where the majority opinion has her.



<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif

<center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Warning: My intense sense of humor may tug at the stick crammed in your shaded spot.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">If you treasure your lack of humor please refrain from reading my posts as they may cause laughter.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Heaven Forbid.</table style></center>
<table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=1)">
<font size=+2><font color="black">Still loving my P-39</font></font> </table style>
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
<table style="filter:glow[color=green,strength=4)"> www.blitzpigs.com</center> (http://www.blitzpigs.com</center>) </table style>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 04:58 PM
Ray,

Not exactly fair comparing 42 plane with 44 plane.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 05:02 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Huck,
-
- Keep in mind that the Russians lightened the P-39
- quite abit. Any tests by anybody but the Russians
- will be off. I think this is the biggest problem
- when everybody talks about the P-39. Oleg knows the
- Russians took most of the armor, and some of the
- guns to lighten it up This is the model we get in
- FB.


Cut the crap Buzz, you have all the guns on P-39. Sometimes russian pilots took off some of the armor to improve stability, not for other reasons. Total weight of the armor was 90kg and half of it was for the pilot.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 05:05 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Ray,
-
- Not exactly fair comparing 42 plane with 44 plane.


P-39N production started in November '42 and it was operational from '43. P-39N is a '43 plane.



Message Edited on 07/23/0311:05AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 05:09 PM
Proof please. My book says something different.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 05:11 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Proof please. My book says something different.
-
- Da Buzz


Proof for what Buzz? Post a quote from your book.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 06:03 PM
Wish I had a P-39 like that. When I tried to outrun a Fw-190A9 in a P-39, he caught up with me every time. This was a human player, so he really knew what he was doing. Tried to initialize the turn fight and he just zoomed away...

I find P-39s to be a good plane if flown correctly, but the same goes for every other plane. If you're having problems fighting it, my recommendation is to go vertical. Although above all I'd say try to get the altitude advantage long before the fight starts. I can't really say I like the armanent on the P-39, those 30 cals in the N1's wing just arent much good, the 50 cals alone just don't work that well, and the cannon is quite low velocity.

Nevertheless, most of my success with the P-39 seems to be in BnZ, although getting up high is risky. Get up high with a P-39, and you're toast.

I don't really understand why a few numbers in a plane's performance in game changes how you can fight them and shoot them down. So the P-39 turns better than it should, and climbs better than it should. So what? Not going to help it when a quad of cannon riddles the entire damn thing with holes.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 06:05 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Huck,
-
- Keep in mind that the Russians lightened the P-39
- quite abit. Any tests by anybody but the Russians
- will be off. I think this is the biggest problem
- when everybody talks about the P-39. Oleg knows the
- Russians took most of the armor, and some of the
- guns to lighten it up This is the model we get in
- FB.

I read that too buzz, but then I hear you guys saying that the 39 can take 30mm hits and survive, then it should be modeled to take less damage. If it sacrificed protection for speed and handling, then it should be easy to bring down.

http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~wingman/pics/g50bis_2.jpg

caccia buon!

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 06:06 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Huck,
-
- Keep in mind that the Russians lightened the P-39
- quite abit. Any tests by anybody but the Russians
- will be off. I think this is the biggest problem
- when everybody talks about the P-39. Oleg knows the
- Russians took most of the armor, and some of the
- guns to lighten it up This is the model we get in
- FB.
-

And keep in mind that the british performance test of the FW had to good results, cause the british mechanics tuned the engine and used them beyond official specifications - german mechanics at the eastern front werenÔ┬┤t able to do this../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
wasnÔ┬┤t this Oleg Maddox opions..?

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 06:08 PM
RBJ,

Thanks for the advice. Maybe that was it. Yes, I was running 110% throttle with WEP on and auto prop (CEM turned off). Why would I get that much of a difference at 105% throttle vs 110%? I understand (I think) prop pitch can actually slow your plane if not properly managed, but I'm confused on this one, at least why it would make such a big difference.

Side note, I was not talking about climb rate or turning ability. The AI 39 outran me at 2000m by a big amount. I'm 100% positive the plane was clean with max power, WEP etc. Wish I would've saved the track though. It was a while ago. If you're interested in the outcome, after taking out my wingman, he increased the distance to over 1000 meters. I tried to follow. He eventually started a slow turn back into me and guess who came up my back side? Since my wingy was gone, his wingman popped me with a 37. I love this game, but I sure do suck at it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Thanks for all the help.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 06:14 PM
I don`t know if it means anything...but Pokrishkin said that P-39N1 was the first aircraft in VVS that could keep up with any german AC on vertical and was clearly superior on its turning abilities. Also he described his encounter with FW190A series and said that besides impressive firepower that plane had not much to offer. The 109`s are still the most feared opponents. By the way...most of soviet top aces flew P-39 for a long peroids of time. Basicaly LA5FN was a replacement for it. Before that it was extreamly popular.

V!

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 06:17 PM
tmdgm1 wrote:
- RBJ,
-
- Thanks for the advice.
- Why would I get that much of a
- difference at 105% throttle vs 110%? I understand
- (I think) prop pitch can actually slow your plane if
- not properly managed, but I'm confused on this one,
- at least why it would make such a big difference.


I don't know if it's a bug or what. Once you get past 105% throttle in German fighters the auto prop pitch moves to a different position that is not optimal for top speed. The difference can be (guessing) like 70km/h

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 06:37 PM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- I don`t know if it means anything...but Pokrishkin
- said that P-39N1 was the first aircraft in VVS that
- could keep up with any german AC on vertical and was
- clearly superior on its turning abilities. Also he
- described his encounter with FW190A series and said
- that besides impressive firepower that plane had not
- much to offer. The 109`s are still the most feared
- opponents. By the way...most of soviet top aces flew
- P-39 for a long peroids of time. Basicaly LA5FN was
- a replacement for it. Before that it was extreamly
- popular.



I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that Ivan is never wrong, never!



Note: Situations where the above would be in disagreement with the presenter of said compliment would create said compliment to become null and void.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif

<center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Warning: My intense sense of humor may tug at the stick crammed in your shaded spot.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">If you treasure your lack of humor please refrain from reading my posts as they may cause laughter.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Heaven Forbid.</table style></center>
<table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=1)">
<font size=+2><font color="black">Still loving my P-39</font></font> </table style>
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
<table style="filter:glow[color=green,strength=4)"> www.blitzpigs.com</center> (http://www.blitzpigs.com</center>) </table style>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 07:22 PM
Mike-espo, the P-39 is extremely easy to take down. IMHO it is one of the most fragile planes in the game along with the P-40 and 109.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Typhooncountry.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 07:31 PM
kyrule2 wrote:
- Mike-espo, the P-39 is extremely easy to take down.
- IMHO it is one of the most fragile planes in the
- game along with the P-40 and 109.
-
Hmmmm, I read on one of these threads someone was complaining that it took three or more 30mm hits to bring down. Cool. Maybe its modelled correctly after all......

http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~wingman/pics/g50bis_2.jpg

caccia buon!

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 07:44 PM
mike_espo wrote:
- Hmmmm, I read on one of these threads someone was
- complaining that it took three or more 30mm hits to
- bring down. Cool. Maybe its modelled correctly after
- all......



A lot of it depends on where the hits are. There were many cases in WWII where a plane took more hits than it should've been able to, but still limped home to find that the damage missed everything essential. In the game I've hit BF-109s with multiple 37mm shots and they still flew. And when I say hits I mean I see the impact cloud more than once. That's the other thing, how many people say "yeah I hit it this many times" when if they had recorded the track and later watched it they might find that they only hit the target once, if at all?





<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif

<center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Warning: My intense sense of humor may tug at the stick crammed in your shaded spot.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">If you treasure your lack of humor please refrain from reading my posts as they may cause laughter.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Heaven Forbid.</table style></center>
<table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=1)">
<font size=+2><font color="black">Still loving my P-39</font></font> </table style>
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
<table style="filter:glow[color=green,strength=4)"> www.blitzpigs.com</center> (http://www.blitzpigs.com</center>) </table style>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 08:29 PM
I forgot where I found this, but it offers a glimpse of what one LW Experten thought of the P-39:

"Years after the war, Bud [Anderson, USAAF] met Gunther Rall, commander of the post-war Luftwaff. Rall was among Germany's leading aces, with 275 victories. "I must have shot down 50 P-39s" he told Bud. "You would hit them any old place and they would go tumbling in." In late 1942 Bud himself was flying one, but when he entered combat in the newly formed 357th he found himself immediately in the new P51-B Mustang."

Of course, the source did not state whether Rall said anything about how difficult it was to get into firing position. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 08:33 PM
Huck,

Your proof is to say for me to prove my side? For minor proof, Oleg says it's a 42 plane. I can get more official proof, but you show something first. I never see you prove anything. Are we to just take your word for everything?

btw..Why do you think the Q-10 comes with no wing guns? It's because the Russians kept taking then off the earlier models, and they asked for the Q-10 to come without them, so they wouldn't have to take them off. Also from what I read. They took the armor off all the P-39's, and it was quite a weight savings.

As for taking a 30mm hit with no damage? Not when i'm flying it. A couple of mgs, and your smoking.

The P-39 is what it is. Your all just going to have to deal with it. Sometimes LW guys are comical. In every year the German planes have an edge now. Don't you like any kind of fair fight?

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 08:35 PM
What were the other 225 kills.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif

<center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Warning: My intense sense of humor may tug at the stick crammed in your shaded spot.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">If you treasure your lack of humor please refrain from reading my posts as they may cause laughter.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Heaven Forbid.</table style></center>
<table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=1)">
<font size=+2><font color="black">Still loving my P-39</font></font> </table style>
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
<table style="filter:glow[color=green,strength=4)"> www.blitzpigs.com</center> (http://www.blitzpigs.com</center>) </table style>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 09:40 PM
- The P-39 is what it is. Your all just going to have
- to deal with it. Sometimes LW guys are comical. In
- every year the German planes have an edge now. Don't
- you like any kind of fair fight?
-
-
- Da Buzz


It's getting ridiculous. So much so that Huck can say something like, 'if a russian test of a german plane says x seconds then it's really x -1 seconds'. And noone even bothers to comment on that remark. Obviously a swastika imbues special powers to aircraft which allow them to overcome the disadvantages of being put together under strategic bombing, by anyone outside the ages of 15-65.

Looks like some people still buy that line about the fantastical superweapons Goering promised...

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 09:44 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Huck,
-
- Your proof is to say for me to prove my side? For
- minor proof, Oleg says it's a 42 plane. I can get
- more official proof, but you show something first. I
- never see you prove anything. Are we to just take
- your word for everything?


Here's a good read about early P-39. See that N model entered in service in '43, until then they used the D-model (less powerful engine).

http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/romanenko/index.htm

Here's another link with dates for starting of production for different P-39 models (I think the source is AHT):

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p39_airacobra.html



- btw..Why do you think the Q-10 comes with no wing
- guns? It's because the Russians kept taking then off
- the earlier models, and they asked for the Q-10 to
- come without them, so they wouldn't have to take
- them off. Also from what I read. They took the armor
- off all the P-39's, and it was quite a weight
- savings.

Most Q models came out the factory without wing guns. 8100 lb is the weight without wing guns. As for armor they did not remove the armor for pilot so at least half from 90kg remains. So a max of 150kg weight saving. P-39 was still a very heavy aircraft for it's power - this is why the russians used it most of the time with fuselage tank empty (of course P-39 had a miserable range in this config). Source is the manual Buzz. Check it out.



- The P-39 is what it is. Your all just going to have
- to deal with it. Sometimes LW guys are comical. In
- every year the German planes have an edge now. Don't
- you like any kind of fair fight?

This is a simulation, it doesn't require a balanced gameplay but a realistic one. Early war was not at all balanced, Bf-109 was absolutely dominant. When Bf-109 will be like it should be I'll switch to VVS.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 09:53 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
-- The P-39 is what it is. Your all just going to have
-- to deal with it. Sometimes LW guys are comical. In
-- every year the German planes have an edge now. Don't
-- you like any kind of fair fight?
--
--
-- Da Buzz
-
-
- It's getting ridiculous. So much so that Huck can
- say something like, 'if a russian test of a german
- plane says x seconds then it's really x -1 seconds'.
- And noone even bothers to comment on that remark.
- Obviously a swastika imbues special powers to
- aircraft which allow them to overcome the
- disadvantages of being put together under strategic
- bombing, by anyone outside the ages of 15-65.
-
-
- Looks like some people still buy that line about the
- fantastical superweapons Goering promised...


Comical is only your ignorance. Bf-109 in british test was outturned by Fw-190!!! how about that? this is how inaccurate flight testing can get, russians got 19 sec and british over 24 sec. Flight testing results are not gospel, they are influenced by many factors outside the airplane performance, like test pilots familiarity with the models, overall state of the aircraft, or propaganda needs. Russian turning tests were the most trustworthy but they are not flawless, if Bf-109 had seen service in the VVS be sure it would have performed better in tests.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 10:22 PM
From your chart Huck.

USA Bell P-39 Airacobra P-39D Apr-41 1,767 360 4 2 1 500 1,150 Allison V-1710-35 2,400 32,100 600 1,100 5,462 7,500 8,200 1 1 incl. P-400, P-39F
P-39N Nov-42 2,795 375 4 2 1 500 1,200 Allison V-1710-85 2,500 35,000 500 1,000 5,645 7,570 8,100 1 1 incl. P-39K/L/M smaller fuel tank
P-39Q May-43 4,905 375


Notice the P-39 N model. Nov 42.


The Q-1 came with gun pods. The Russians took then off. So Bell decided to leave them off the Q-10.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 10:31 PM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- I don`t know if it means anything...but Pokrishkin
- said that P-39N1 was the first aircraft in VVS that
- could keep up with any german AC on vertical and was
- clearly superior on its turning abilities. Also he
- described his encounter with FW190A series and said
- that besides impressive firepower that plane had not
- much to offer. The 109`s are still the most feared
- opponents. By the way...most of soviet top aces flew
- P-39 for a long peroids of time. Basicaly LA5FN was
- a replacement for it. Before that it was extreamly
- popular.
-
- V!

P39 vs 190
ItÔ┬┤s interesting... the finnish aces said the same about the P39... it was a flying gun- nothing more

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 10:39 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- From your chart Huck.
-
- USA Bell P-39 Airacobra P-39D Apr-41 1,767 360 4
- 2 1 500 1,150 Allison V-1710-35 2,400 32,100
- 600 1,100 5,462 7,500 8,200 1 1 incl. P-400,
- P-39F
- P-39N Nov-42 2,795 375 4 2 1 500 1,200
- Allison V-1710-85 2,500 35,000 500 1,000 5,645
- 7,570 8,100 1 1 incl. P-39K/L/M smaller fuel tank
- P-39Q May-43 4,905 375
-
-
- Notice the P-39 N model. Nov 42.


Yep, that's right. This is production launch. Then they had to ship it to USSR. Then make squadrons with it. P-39N became operational in early '43.



- The Q-1 came with gun pods. The Russians took then
- off. So Bell decided to leave them off the Q-10.

Not necessarely. Those at 8100 lb gross weight were without wing guns, the others at 8350 lb had them installed. In fact in manual the weight breakdown for P-39Q1 is without wing mounted MG.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 10:43 PM
On your chart. It said received date.

If they didn't remove the gun pods. Then why were they left off the Q-10?

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 10:52 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- On your chart. It said received date.

No it says production date. And shipping over the Atlantic took a lot.



- If they didn't remove the gun pods. Then why were
- they left off the Q-10?

You can check the differences between Q variants at Baugher's site, with mention that most produced variants were in both config - with or without wing mounted MG.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_15.html

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 10:57 PM
Huck,

Look at that chart again. Under production, it has Svc. Del.. I take this to mean service delivery. Maybe some of the squads didn't get the plane in 42, but the planes were in Russia.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:04 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Huck,
-
- Look at that chart again. Under production, it has
- Svc. Del.. I take this to mean service delivery.
- Maybe some of the squads didn't get the plane in 42,
- but the planes were in Russia.


Since the deliveries began in Nov 42 it's impossible to believe that the aircraft was operational in 42. Read that article about early P-39 and see that in Nov '42 they still were still shipping D,K,L models.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:07 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Cut the crap Buzz, you have all the guns on P-39.
- Sometimes russian pilots took off some of the armor
- to improve stability, not for other reasons. Total
- weight of the armor was 90kg and half of it was for
- the pilot.

Huck, The Soviets did not remove the guns "to improve stability", they were taken from the Q-1 to keep the armament set-up consistent with their domestically produced planes. The Soviets felt 2 .50s and a 37mm were more than enough.

Additionally, except for this board, I can't find any credible reference to Soviets removing armor from their planes.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/SkyChimp.jpg



Message Edited on 07/24/0302:11AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:11 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
--
- Huck, The Soviets did not remove the guns "to
- improve stability", they were taken from the Q-1 to
- keep the armament set-up consistent with their
- domestically produced planes. The Soviets felt 2
- .50s and a 37mm were more than enough.


When did I say they removed the guns "to improve stability"? Can you point that out? Or was it just a failed nitpicking?

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:11 PM
Huck,

The planes were in Russia in 42. If it was early Nov, then they had two months with them. I'm sure some of them were in the air. You have to call it a 42 plane.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:11 PM
Go back and read the post again, we posted at the same time.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/SkyChimp.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:14 PM
SkyChimp wrote:-
- Additionally, except for this board, I can't find
- any credible reference to Soviets removing armor
- from their planes.


Me either. But there were differences in armor in subsequent models directly from factory. The weight of the armor was small compared to the weight of plane anyway, you can't have big gains from here.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:19 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Huck,
-
- The planes were in Russia in 42. If it was early
- Nov, then they had two months with them. I'm sure
- some of them were in the air. You have to call it a
- 42 plane.


Maybe they send some, though the bulk were still the early models. Read that article Buzz. Also there is no guarantee that the planes reached active squadrons in '42. Time span is too short. Tell me one active squadron that had P-39N in operational service in '42.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:20 PM
I've read they removed the armor in quite a few places. I'll have to find it again. I know it's in Attack of the Airacobras, but i'm to lazy to find it. You would have to take my word for it anyway, so that won't work with Huck.


btw Huck. Do you agree the N model was a 42 model?

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:23 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- btw Huck. Do you agree the N model was a 42 model?


No, since it wasn't operational in '42.
In '42 only the production had started.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:23 PM
We poated at the same time. I agree the N model wasn't wide spread in 42, but it only takes one plane to see battle to call it a 42 plane. Can you say for sure that one didn't? Oleg seems to think it's a 42 plane, so maybe he has info we don't.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:26 PM
We keep posting at the same time. Your back stepping Huck. You already admitted that the N model was in Russia in 42. It's not a production date. It's a delivery date.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:30 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- We poated at the same time. I agree the N model
- wasn't wide spread in 42, but it only takes one
- plane to see battle to call it a 42 plane. Can you
- say for sure that one didn't? Oleg seems to think
- it's a 42 plane, so maybe he has info we don't.


No, it's just a mistake in Object Viewer, like yak-3 was listed as a '43 plane, when it wasn't operational.

To say that a plane was operational in a certain year it takes at least a regular squadron (not a combat testing squadron) to be equiped with it at full strenght. Though if it makes it in the last month of a year we can consider it for the next year (if it did not have a significant impact immediately).

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:32 PM
Guys, just brushed thru Pokrishkins and Rechkalovs books...looks like in the fall on 1942 9th Guards was re-equiped with P-39N`s BUT, entered the action only on spring of 1943 near Kavkaz. First Flight of P-39N`s happened on April 9th of 1943. But they were received in late november, early december

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:33 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Most Q models came out the factory without wing
- guns.

There were different blocks of Q models, the 1,5,10,15,20,25. All 1s were produced with wing guns. this was the most numerous block.



- 8100 lb is the weight without wing guns.

Absolutely incorrect. The P-39Q-1 (all Q-1s had wing guns)empty weight is 5,684 lbs. The Q-1 in a 8,086lb configuration includes: pilot, full internal fuel, 30 rounds of 37mm, 1000 rounds of .50, AND **500lb bomb**.

The Q-1 had a 30 round 37mm capacity, 200 rounds for each of the nose .50s, and 300 rounds for each of the wing .50s.



- As
- for armor they did not remove the armor for pilot so
- at least half from 90kg remains. So a max of 150kg
- weight saving. P-39 was still a very heavy aircraft
- for it's power - this is why the russians used it
- most of the time with fuselage tank empty (of course
- P-39 had a miserable range in this config). Source
- is the manual Buzz. Check it out.

Huck, you just said above that 8,100 lbs was WITHOUT wing guns. Now you claim the source for all this information is the manual.

Here is page 20A from the manual:

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/weight.jpg


It clearly states that the gross weight of the P-39Q-1 WITH wing guns was 7,570 lbs.

Huck, your errors are becoming so gross I can't help but believe you are intentionally posting erroneous data.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/SkyChimp.jpg



Message Edited on 07/24/0302:39AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:35 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- BuzzU wrote:
-- btw Huck. Do you agree the N model was a 42 model?
-
-
- No, since it wasn't operational in '42.
- In '42 only the production had started.


This is also incorrect. First **deliveries** of P-39N began in November 1942. Production began earlier.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/SkyChimp.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:46 PM
Chimp,

I don't know if you've followed all our posts. I asked for proof that the P-39N wasn't a 42 model. Huck gives me a chart where it says delivery date was nov 42. I thought it was funny that I used his own chart against him.

I don't think he'll ever admit he was wrong though.


Huck...Just admit it this time. You were wrong. Just once show us you can do that.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:53 PM
BuzzU wrote:

- I don't think he'll ever admit he was wrong though.


Of course he won't admit it. He was grossly wrong about the P-39 climb rate. I proved he screwed up his interpretation of the charts and now he's trying to weasel out of that.

Now he's screwed up the delivery date, and he's trying to weasel out of that, too.

He claims to have the pilot's manual (I think he does) and blatantly says 8,100lbs was the weight without wing guns. If he had the manual, why such a gross mistake?





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/SkyChimp.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 12:02 AM
Chimp,

I'm not sure he has the manual. I think he got the climb rate from this site. Look at the chart at the bottom of the page.

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p39_airacobra.html

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 12:23 AM
No, he has it. It's available for download somewhere, I just can't remember where.

==

I do see that I made a mistake, the Q-1 was not the most numerous variant, the Q-15, at 1,000 planes, was the most numerous.

Another thing, ALL Qs (*) were produced with wing guns. The only Q's NOT DELIVERED with wing guns were "some" P-39Q-25s and 30s that went to the Soviet Union. Otherwise, the Qs that went to the Soviet Union had wing guns, and the Soviets removed them themselves.

* The only Q not produced with wing guns was the P-39Q-22, the two seat trainer version.


Source: "Cobra! The Bell Aircraft Corporation 1934-1946", Birch Matthews, page 165





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/SkyChimp.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 02:41 AM
This Huck gem was directed at me the other day in another thread.

"You can't tell anything from pilot reports, they are always contradictory. This is the reason why we have test flight buddy."

Now in this thread he obviously feels differently:

Huck wrote to clint-ruin:

"This is how inaccurate flight testing can get. Flight testing results are not gospel, they are influenced by many factors outside the airplane performance, like test pilots familiarity with the models, overall state of the aircraft, or propaganda needs."


Yes Huck, your posts are comical. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif





<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Typhooncountry.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 02:56 AM
Don't be to hard on Huck. He's like a puppy who won't stop pi$$ing on the carpet, but at the end of the day. I still like him.



Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 02:59 AM
BuzzU wrote:
- Don't be to hard on Huck. He's like a puppy who
- won't stop pi$$ing on the carpet, but at the end of
- the day. I still like him.

I'd like him a lot more if I believed his mistakes were honest ones.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/SkyChimp.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 09:59 AM
--
-- Looks like some people still buy that line about the
-- fantastical superweapons Goering promised...
-
-
- Comical is only your ignorance. Bf-109 in british
- test was outturned by Fw-190!!! how about that? this
- is how inaccurate flight testing can get, russians
- got 19 sec and british over 24 sec. Flight testing
- results are not gospel, they are influenced by many
- factors outside the airplane performance, like test
- pilots familiarity with the models, overall state of
- the aircraft, or propaganda needs. Russian turning
- tests were the most trustworthy but they are not
- flawless, if Bf-109 had seen service in the VVS be
- sure it would have performed better in tests.
-
-

As it turns out, you're basing half of your claims about VVS bias on flights offline Vs the AI. Thanks so much for that.

Almost this entire thread could've been avoided if you could simply bring yourself to fly a VVS plane in the game. You'd find yourself being out-turned, climbed, and dived by the LW AI planes by similar sorts of margins.

Pilot accounts aren't gospel, and now, of course, test flights aren't gospel ... or at least if they're done by the British or the Russians or the guys at NACA. Only strong and pure german minds can comprehend the fearsome power of the Bf109!

I don't suppose it would help to point out that LW performance data was largely regarded by the russian test crews as utter BS, and at best a theoretical measure of what an ideal aircraft might achieve?

No. I don't suppose it would.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 12:53 PM
RayBanJockey wrote:


- I believe I have solved the original posters
- problem. He was probably running with WEP, auto
- pitch, and 110% throttle, which is much slower than
- 105% throttle.



Is this really true? As far as the P-39 accelerating better than the Bf109G, I think your crazy.That G10 climbs and accelerates like a beast!



http://www.stuartairshow.com/images/p51mustangs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 01:15 PM
in FB release the BMW driven Fws have NO autoproppitch (Kommandoger├┬Ąt) ! they have a CSP.

in TEST08, they have a working Kommandoger├┬Ąt.


about P-39 in VVS service.

the first ones should be P-400/AiracobraI . Northern sector, Murmansk area , 19.GIAP. May 1942


in the south , over the caucasus, it was the 298.IAP, in March 1943. i dont think they got the N modell as their first equipment.

i would realy be interested in the first date when a P-39N flew a combat sortie with a VVS regiment !

http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/franky.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 09:44 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- BuzzU wrote:
-- Don't be to hard on Huck. He's like a puppy who
-- won't stop pi$$ing on the carpet, but at the end of
-- the day. I still like him.
-
- I'd like him a lot more if I believed his mistakes
- were honest ones.


Yup my mistake with loaded weights. I think I was misleaded by the fact that 87gal internal seemed too small, considering the fact that a Bf109 has 106gal. I thought that the 75gal tank is housed internally. So yes loaded weight is 7570lb.