PDA

View Full Version : Airacobra...Oh dear! Typhoon...Tarty Starty!



SECUDUS
01-31-2004, 02:15 PM
http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/Whirlwind/Airacobra.gif?0.7831700247076809

I wonder if they were all this bad or was this one made on a Friday...

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

[This message was edited by SECUDUS on Sat January 31 2004 at 05:19 PM.]

SECUDUS
01-31-2004, 02:15 PM
http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/Whirlwind/Airacobra.gif?0.7831700247076809

I wonder if they were all this bad or was this one made on a Friday...

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

[This message was edited by SECUDUS on Sat January 31 2004 at 05:19 PM.]

Gibbage1
01-31-2004, 02:44 PM
This was a P-400. The British had a wonderful way of cocking up US aircraft. Like the P-38 the British orderd. "Ya. No Turbo's and take out the guns" but they complain about bad high alt performance, and low armorment. Twits.

Gib

SECUDUS
01-31-2004, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
This was a P-400. The British had a wonderful way of cocking up US aircraft. Like the P-38 the British orderd. "Ya. No Turbo's and take out the guns" but they complain about bad high alt performance, and low armorment. Twits.

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gib, is this info wrong then? http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/bellp39.html#bellp39verstab

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

Bobsqueek
01-31-2004, 03:02 PM
I thought the yanks took them out?

SECUDUS
01-31-2004, 03:06 PM
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_5.html More info...

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

SkyChimp
01-31-2004, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SECUDUS:
Gib, is this info wrong then? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So he didn't like the plane.

But Gib is right about the P-38. The Brits wanted the turbosuperchargers out, then complained about high altitude capability.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SECUDUS
01-31-2004, 03:43 PM
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/XP-39.html

"Taken as a whole, the P-39 was a dismal failure of the AAF's engineering and procurement establishment to identify and develop the better attributes of an advanced and promising fighter aircraft. This was the same establishment that prevented Lockheed from installing Merlin engines in the P-38 as early as 1941. Had the USAAC (Air Corps) not stripped the turbosupercharger from the XP-39, the United States may have entered the war with a competitive single engine fighter plane already in service. Indeed, it was not until the advent of the Bell P-63 that the level of performance finally matched that of the Bell XP-39 of 1939. Of course, by that time, the P-63 was already outclassed by the P-38, P-47 and P-51. Indeed, the P-63 was too little too late. In large part, it was the Air Corps myopic vision of the future of aerial warfare that caused it to be so."



Hmmm... This is a blatent lie then and the the American USAAC did'nt take the TurboSuperCharger out of their own accord...

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

TX-Bomblast
01-31-2004, 03:50 PM
I still don't understand how the Russkies got that P-39 to fly in air to air combat?? If they were that good as we have here in Forgotten Battles why did the USA sell most of them to the Russians?? Some thing is wrong somewhere.

SECUDUS
01-31-2004, 04:02 PM
If you ever have the chance to get rid of something that you find is...Let's say for want of a better word, a Dog! Why not off load it to someone who will take anything rather than have nothing themselves and pay for the priviledge too boot! And you get a pat on the back from the folks at home, money in the bank as well... Good PR and good business. Lol.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

MachineII
01-31-2004, 04:05 PM
Don't forget, the Brits also didn't want counter-rotating props...also AGAINST Lockheed's advice.

Then they had the nerve to refuse receipt and almost ended up in a huge lawsuit when Lockheed threatened to sue. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Well, we needed the trainers anyway.

A the very least we can thank them for the name. Who wants an Atlanta? Ugh.

Generally speaking the stuff on Jordan's website is VERY good and he quotes Bodie a lot. Bodie, if you cannot tell, has nothing good to say about the War Department's procurement methods...just look at his P-38K article. Now, it didn't have Merlin's but they were late model V-1710's with very similar peformance to a Merlin...and would have done amazing things....(sad).

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

SkyChimp
01-31-2004, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SECUDUS:
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/XP-39.html

"Taken as a whole, the P-39 was a dismal failure of the AAF's engineering and procurement establishment to identify and develop the better attributes of an advanced and promising fighter aircraft. This was the same establishment that prevented Lockheed from installing Merlin engines in the P-38 as early as 1941. Had the USAAC (Air Corps) not stripped the turbosupercharger from the XP-39, the United States may have entered the war with a competitive single engine fighter plane already in service. Indeed, it was not until the advent of the Bell P-63 that the level of performance finally matched that of the Bell XP-39 of 1939. Of course, by that time, the P-63 was already outclassed by the P-38, P-47 and P-51. Indeed, the P-63 was too little too late. In large part, it was the Air Corps myopic vision of the future of aerial warfare that caused it to be so."



Hmmm... This is a blatent lie then and the the American USAAC did'nt take the TurboSuperCharger out of their own accord...

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reread what I and Gibbage wrote.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SECUDUS
01-31-2004, 04:11 PM
Airacobra...?

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

FW190fan
01-31-2004, 04:13 PM
I honestly don't know what to make of the P-39 Airacobra. I have never read about any fighter that gives such conflicting opinions from so many different pilots.

It's good,

It's bad,

It's good,

It's bad.

WTF?

Bud Fortier liked it much better than the P-40. Basically said the P-40 was an antique compared to it.

Ben Brown, who flew the P-39 in combat in the Pacific didn't like it. Said his group was not happy at all about giving up their P-40s for it.

The Russian's liked it.

The British didn't.

What the heck is the truth about the P-39? I'm starting to suspect that this quote by USAAF pilot Ben Brown sums it up:

"The P-39 was alot of fun to fly if you did not have to worry about somebody shooting at you or, conversely, if you had to try to shoot at somebody..." (That was one of the nicer quotes)

I'm reading a lengthy article now about Brown's combat career and his experiences ferrying a/c (over 55 different types) in WWII including the P-39 and 63.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Black Sheep
01-31-2004, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

The British had a wonderful way of cocking up US aircraft.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm.

Wasn't the P51 a bag of bo**ocks until someone had the sense to put RR Merlins in them ?

Didn't those same someone's also give its famous name ?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FW190fan
01-31-2004, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SECUDUS:
Why not off load it to someone who will take anything rather than have nothing themselves and pay for the priviledge too boot! And you get a pat on the back from the folks at home, money in the bank as well... Good PR and good business. Lol.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about the good business part.

Russia never bothered to pay for those Airacobras. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

hobnail
01-31-2004, 04:17 PM
Some of you guys must really missing Huckbein and Isegrim...

http://users.on.net/apoulos/webbanner.jpg (http://www.jg11.com)

necrobaron
01-31-2004, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:



I don't know about the good business part.

Russia never bothered to pay for those Airacobras. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Evidently,the Russians didn't quite understand the concept of "Lend/Lease"....http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Not all who wander are lost."

SkyChimp
01-31-2004, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SECUDUS:
If you ever have the chance to get rid of something that you find is...Let's say for want of a better word, a Dog! Why not off load it to someone who will take anything rather than have nothing themselves and pay for the priviledge too boot! And you get a pat on the back from the folks at home, money in the bank as well... Good PR and good business. Lol.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Secudus, noone held a gun to anyone's head to take these planes. And just like Britain, noone took what they didn't want. And IIRC, the Soviets requested MORE P-39s.

And by the way, weren't the Brits "dumping" outdated Hurricanes on the Soviets?

Not sure why you find that fact that the US charged for arms unsuitable. I mean, they weren't built by charities and nuns, were they? After all, the Brits had no problem charging absurb royalties for British things built under license (Merlin engine for one).

And nevermind the "Lend" portion of Lend-Lease. Thousands upon thousands of small arms were built for the British, by US companies like Savage Arms, stamped "Property Of The US", were loaned to the British, then dumped into the sea by them after the war.

Now, since this is simply a thread intended to dump on the P-39, shall we talk about the Whirlwind's illustrious performance and career?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
01-31-2004, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
Wasn't the P51 a bag of bo**ocks until someone had the sense to put RR Merlins in them ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. The Allison P-51 was considered a much finer handling fighter at low altitude and gave nothing up to the Merlin powered plane at low to moderate altitude.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SECUDUS
01-31-2004, 04:30 PM
"This was a P-400. The British had a wonderful way of cocking up US aircraft. Like the P-38 the British orderd. "Ya. No Turbo's and take out the guns" but they complain about bad high alt performance, and low armorment. Twits."

Gib



How have we now got to be talking about the P-38...? When I don't see anything about the British asking for the turbos being taken out of the P-39? - So why make a comment about another a/c and a decision that made it less than it was and then make a comparison that has nothing to do with the a/c in question (P-39) and confer that it was the Brit's that cocked the P-39 up as well...

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

FW190fan
01-31-2004, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And nevermind the "Lend" portion of Lend-Lease. Thousands upon thousands of small arms were built for the British, by US companies like Savage Arms, stamped "Property Of The US", were loaned to the British, then dumped into the sea by them after the war.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It get's even worse with the Brits:

"...while the terms of the Lend-Lease agreement specified that American aircraft at the end of the fighting had to be either purchased, returned, or scrapped, so the majority of P-47s were simply destroyed at their combat bases by either being bulldozed into a pile or having a hand grenade thrown into their cockpits."

-"Heavyweight from Farmingdale"-Michael O'Leary

So this is what the Brit's did to their P-47s in the Far East at the end of the war.

Can anyone tell me, what the heck that was supposed to accomplish, other than being a total waste?

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Xnomad
01-31-2004, 04:41 PM
Smashing, here comes the flag waving $hite once again, how did the original post end up into this international ****ging match? Now it's "If you criticise my plane you criticise my nation" this means war!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

Black Sheep
01-31-2004, 04:41 PM
Apologies Skychimp, I was just poking a little gentle fun - the Allison engined 'stangs were effective combat planes too, I agree http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



M.

BfHeFwMe
01-31-2004, 04:46 PM
So now we're suppose to take the word from a fairy pilot, one sortie ace too, none the less. Yep, surely used the best and most experianced for those duties. The noob got it in the air and back, couldn't have been all that bad. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

SECUDUS
01-31-2004, 04:46 PM
Now then, now then...Lets not start a slanging match here. As you already know there are people out there who have brought to our good selves the shortcomings and the praise of various A/C. I have the intension of posting some more of the comments of Mr Hugh Bergel and they are not all glowing reports of some of the Fav's...

You have to take the rough with the smooth and not get so easily ruffled!

Say what you like about the Whirlwind...I know what she was capable of and I try to speak the truth in her case, but know more than I would for any other a/c! It's not worth trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes, there are to many who know alot more than I. If this is wrong info, show me and I will bow to your greater knowledge...

Sec.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

SeaFireLIV
01-31-2004, 04:51 PM
Ok, SkyChimp, we know you`re a wonderful patriotic American (we`ve heard it many times), but British bashing is asking for a Royal US bashing back! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif You really like making international enemies don`t you?

Also, The Brits didn`t dump all their crap Hurris onto the Russians. The russians at first thought this the case but it wasn`t so.
http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Dark.jpg

SkyChimp
01-31-2004, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Ok, SkyChimp, we know you`re a wonderful patriotic American (we`ve heard it many times), but British bashing is asking for a Royal US bashing back! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif You really like making international enemies don`t you?

Also, The Brits didn`t dump all their crap Hurris onto the Russians. The russians at first thought this the case but it wasn`t so.
http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Dark.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh please Seafire, don't beat me up too bad.

If you want to get mad at someone, look at Secudus. I didn't start this tread, and I didn't try to defend it by implying Americans were profiteers in WWII dumping their crap on the poor Brits.

You really ought to think things out before you start tossing around insults.

I know, I'll start a thread ...


Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

horseback
01-31-2004, 05:23 PM
I don't understand all this confusion about why the RAF and USAAF found the Airacobra unsuited to their needs, while the Soviets loved it...it's really a very simple matter of the strengths of the airplane matching the needs of its user.

The USAAF and RAF were fighting high altitude wars in both the ETO and the Pacific. The Airacobra was not suited to high altitude operation -- frankly, it started losing performance at around 13,000ft, and both organizations had aircraft less 'touchy', more orthodox and more capable at medium (10-18,000 ft) altitudes.

For the Soviet pilots, switching from LaGGs or I-16s, the P-39 offered a much more comfortable cockpit and all the modern amenities that their previous mounts lacked, like modern sights, heat, and a radio that worked. Throw in the low altitude performance, which was better than most at the time, the hitting power of the armament, and the fact that the Eastern Front was a low-altitude front, and you get satisfied customers.

It didn't fly as 'sweet' as a Spitfire, but it could take more abuse and keep on coming. Certainly, the Soviets never found anything particularly appealing about the Spitfire, so maybe it was a matter of national style. Whatever it was, the Airacobra certainly fit the VVS' style -- and they didn't need a British ferry pilot's approval in order to ask for more of 'em.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Xnomad
01-31-2004, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
If you want to get mad at someone, look at Secudus. I didn't start this tread, and I didn't try to defend it by implying Americans were profiteers in WWII dumping their crap on the poor Brits.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he [Secudus] was replying to the post above his about why the Russians wanted so many plus you can tell he was trying to be funny. I think it was Gibbage that went and started it by calling Brits twits. The original post is only just a scan from a book and a harmless sentence.

Oh and horseback nice answer that sounds about right to me.

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

SkyChimp
01-31-2004, 05:30 PM
You're right. I'm not gonna fight with my British friends. They are OK for tea-drinking twits.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
01-31-2004, 05:44 PM
"When Ben Kelsey was chief of the Fighter Project Branch at Wright Field before
the US entered the war, he was part of a team that evaluated the Spitfire for
possible production in the United States. The plane was already legendary for
its performance in the Battle of Britain, and the American evaluators
approached the aircraft with mixed awe and enthusiasm. But they quickly soured
on the airplane. As part of the evaluation, Kelsey flew the Spitfire from
Wright Field in Ohio to March Field in California. The trip was a nightmare.
Because of the short range of the airplane, he had to land at a number of
little-used secondary airfields and often touched down with the engine running
on little more than gas fumes. At many fields, engine cooling was inadequate
to permit taxiing from the landing strip to the service area. Long runways on
high desert airfields involved crosswind taxing that burned out the brakes.
The aircraft's marginal stability when airborne quickly exhausted the pilot,
especially in rough air. It was impossible to safely skirt the edges of even a
mild midwestern thunderstorm because of the plane's skittish handling, and what
was routine heartland weather in a P-40--or P-39--was dangerous in a
Spitfire.... In short, there were so many things wrong with the Spitfire from
the American point of view that the Air Corps evaluation board ruled it
unacceptable.
The point being that what one air force wants and needs is not what another one
does, and their evaluations of airplanes will be prejudiced by their own
requirements. The fact that the RAF had no particular use for the P-39 should
not be given more weight than the fact that the Soviet Air Force apparently not
only liked the P-39, but specifically requested it (my source for this is
Richard Lukas' "Eagles East," which is a fairly old book, but seems well
researched.)
{As an aside, Prof. Williamson Murray, who used to teach at the Air War
College, has said that the Luftwaffe had become a second-rate air force by the
end of 1943 at the latest, largely due to the atttrition warfare on the eastern
front. The P-39 must have played a part, perhaps a significant one, in
attriting the Luftwaffe; at least the Soviets, in negotiating the Third
Washington Protocol, which covered Lend-Lease to the USSR from Jan. thru June,
1943, asked for a staggering 500 P-39s a month to be delivered to them. They
had been using them (and P-400s) in combat for some time by then, and if the
airplane wasn't doing the job for them, they would have rejected it. They
certainly rejected the P-40 (which plane the USAAF in the SWPA thought was a
much better airplane than the P-39--again, different air force, different
needs)}.

It's interesting to note that the rate of climb of the P-39, which everybody in
the USAAF pissed and moaned about, was actually not that bad. The D and F
models (identical except for props, one electric, one hydraulic) could beat
both the P47C and P-51A to 25,000 ft.--and take *half* the time the P-40E took.
A P-39Q could get to 25,000 ft. in about 10.5 minutes, almost six minutes
quicker than the P-51D. (Of course, the Q couldn't fly from London to Berlin
and back.)
One of the reasons the P-39 got a bad rap in the SWPA was that when it was
initially deployed fairly early in 1942, what was desperately needed was a
super-fast climbing interceptor, because the best warning of an incoming air
raid was about five minutes. What was needed was something like the CW-21
(something with its rate of climb, anyway). The fact was that no fighter would
have been able to respond effectively under those circumstances. But since the
P-39 was what was on hand, it got damned by frustrated pilots struggling uphill
at 160 mph while the Japanese, thousands of feet above, winged over and howled
down on them.
It's worth noting that, despite the disadvantages they fought under, the 8FG,
which took over from RAAF 75 Squadron at Moresby, suffered fewer losses with
its P-39s than did 75 Squadron with its P-40s. And it should not be forgotten
that the P-39 was, in fact, not a failure in those desperate early days in New
Guinea. The 8th (and later the 35th) and its Airacobras gave the JNAF's Tainan
Air Wing (and later the 2AW) and its Zeros a well-pulped and very bloody nose.
Air raids on Morseby tapered off from two a day at the end of April to one or
two a week by the end of June. Nobody else was shooting at the Japs, so it
must have been the P-39s that discouraged them." C.C. Jordan

SECUDUS
01-31-2004, 05:47 PM
Tea...Tea, thats a girls drink! Nobody, who is anybody drinks tea now, we all drink coffee at Starbucks...Lol.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

faustnik
01-31-2004, 05:56 PM
Ahhh, more Cobra bashing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Unfortunatley, the RAF did not realize that they had a diamond in the rough with the P-39. Fortunately, the Soviets were there to win the war with it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

GR142_Astro
01-31-2004, 06:09 PM
Hold on, back to this supercharger thing.

Wasn't there a U.S. ban imposed on supercharger exports? Hence the gutless performance of the P38s delivered to the English.

SECUDUS
01-31-2004, 06:10 PM
http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/Upload01/Untitled_01_copy.jpg?0.9316182528738091

Moving on...I wonder if Oleg and the team will model this correctly...?

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

[This message was edited by SECUDUS on Sat January 31 2004 at 05:23 PM.]

Dav_1
01-31-2004, 06:19 PM
Aghhh... to some green US pilots in the pacific the P-39D must of been horrible againest the zero, but it's actually quite a good fighter. Think about what they were fighting againest
Russian 39s vs 109Fs/Gs http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
US 39s vs A6M2 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
And on the western front the p39 would have been useless anyway due to the fact that fighting took place at like 20000ft

Also little known fact (well to me anyway)
The russians took out the wing guns on the 39s which is also why the Q10 has none, they were produced without them at the request of the russian pilots.

jensenpark
01-31-2004, 06:24 PM
I've asked before but haven't heard back from anyone:

What were the negative implications on performance, safety, etc from the modifications the Soviets made on the P39?
Ok, so they lost the wing .30's big deal, but surely losing armour had to have some negative effect?

http://images.ucomics.com/images/doonesbury/strip/thecast/duke2.jpg

"Death before unconsciousness" - Uncle Duke

SECUDUS
01-31-2004, 06:33 PM
jensenpark, if I knew I would say...Perhaps Gibbage would know...?

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

WhiskeyRiver
01-31-2004, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Hold on, back to this supercharger thing.

Wasn't there a U.S. ban imposed on supercharger exports? Hence the gutless performance of the P38s delivered to the English.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The p-38 did not have a supercharger. It was equipped with turbochargers. The US exported plenty of P-40's equipped with superchargers. B-24 with turbos were also exported.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

Lucius_Esox
01-31-2004, 06:37 PM
This is nationalistic bulshine imo. Too many people have said that the P39 was not a very good aircraft in many respects for it to be untrue. What I personally don't like is that even if this were more clear cut, i.e. 100%, people would still defend it. It's the attitude it's American so it must be good that freaks me out. No **** of the Americans in general although seems a similar attitude as the Brits in the days of empire etc. Why is it so hard to believe that in real life the plane was not good? Good grief the Brits Russians and Germans made some cr*p planes! I even heard someone say on these boards once that on balence (and in the right hands) the M4 Sherman was as good as any of the German medium tanks in the 2WW. ????
Sod the political correctness it's wrong..

Blimey its not as if the Americans didn't make enough good one's or anything like that....

"He who defends everything ends up defending nothing" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

nixon-fiend.
01-31-2004, 06:49 PM
Cocking up US aircraft? ha.


As Astro pointed out. the US had a ban on exporting superchargers (selfish gits http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) Hence; the p39s and p38s ~Britain received were pretty wank.. and got sent back/away.

Ta for that.

FW190fan
01-31-2004, 07:07 PM
There is a difference between turbo-superchargers and regular or "mechanical superchargers."

All planes had superchargers.

Not all planes had TURBO-superchargers.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

SeaFireLIV
01-31-2004, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
You're right. I'm not gonna fight with my British friends. They are OK for tea-drinking twits.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Patronising American Git. (Gibbage1 too for starting the Brit bashing).

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/greypilots.jpg

[This message was edited by SeaFireLIV on Sun February 01 2004 at 03:38 AM.]

p1ngu666
01-31-2004, 07:51 PM
the brits didnt want the p38 turbos because they where troublesome
same with the props perhaps?
and we know the p38 had issues at cold high alt to begin with with the americans.

horseback
01-31-2004, 08:02 PM
Actually, the tea drinking thing can be the natural result of waking up to find that you're out of Folgers' and all the caffeine in the house is contained in three Liptons' tea bags of indeterminate age and a sixpack of Pepsi frozen solid in the cellar.

Try getting to work in the morning with a raging case of caffeine withdrawal exacerbated by the aftertaste of stale bag tea (one mug with all three bags in it). Make it a twenty mile drive in freezing cold on crowded roads while it is still dark with everyone else apparently in the same condition.

You'd be surprised how common an experience this is for Americans of a certain age, and it does much to explain our antipathy for people who traditionally drink tea. This becomes an even greater antipathy for those of us who have had to opportunity to experience traditional English coffee making -- it's enough to make us question the use of "English" and "civilization" in the same sentence.

But then, your lot spells it "civilisation," doesn't it?

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

icrash
01-31-2004, 08:48 PM
You just have to find what role the plane is at its best & use it for that. The cannon (was it a 37mm?) had to be better at chewing up tanks than machine guns. I got to see one flying at an airshow and down low it seemed quick and agile enough (whether or not he was flying it wide open I don't know). No clue as to high alt. performance (it was an airshow and no I couldn't get a good picture of it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ). What I want to know is how come they put the funky doors on it instead on the normal canopy and wouldn't this make it hard to get out of?

Cajun76
01-31-2004, 09:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by icrash:
You just have to find what role the plane is at its best & use it for that. The cannon (was it a 37mm?) had to be better at chewing up tanks than machine guns. I got to see one flying at an airshow and down low it seemed quick and agile enough (whether or not he was flying it wide open I don't know). No clue as to high alt. performance (it was an airshow and no I couldn't get a good picture of it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ). What I want to know is how come they put the funky doors on it instead on the normal canopy and wouldn't this make it hard to get out of?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I don't know, icrash. What's easier, climbing in your car through the door, or the sunroof? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

pourshot
01-31-2004, 09:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jensenpark:
I've asked before but haven't heard back from anyone:

What were the negative implications on performance, safety, etc from the modifications the Soviets made on the P39?
Ok, so they lost the wing .30's big deal, but surely losing armour had to have some negative effect?

http://images.ucomics.com/images/doonesbury/strip/thecast/duke2.jpg

"Death before unconsciousness" - Uncle Duke<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember reading that the general feeling was " it's better to make it faster and handle better so we dont need the armour " and not to many VVS pilots liked wing mounted guns anyway so they got rid of them.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

Tempestate
01-31-2004, 10:47 PM
MachineII

I thought it was the US that %#@^ up the lightning deal by refusing to allow the export of the proper engine and making the brits use their own engines that naturally rotated the wrong way????

I may be wrong as I just remember reading this somewhere and do not have a source in front of me.

Cajun76
01-31-2004, 11:20 PM
IIRC, the engines installed rotated the same direction on any version, that way engines were interchangeable, 2 Merlins or 2 Allisons. (For all I know, the two rotate the same direction) One of the engines/nacelles had a gearbox to make the prop counterotate in relation to the other. Again, IIRC, the designer did this to make it a more stable gun platform.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

kyrule2
01-31-2004, 11:26 PM
If the P-39 bled at least SOME energy it would be more believable in FB. The inclusion of some sort of stall would be nice too, god knows they modelled stalling well enough on planes like the 190 & P-47 well enough. I believe the P-39 was improved by the Soviets, but no way do I believe it is what is represented in FB, especially where energy bleed and forgiveness are concerned. I miss the P-39 from IL-2 as I like flying planes that feel real and have character (P-47, FW-190, & P-51 for example).

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

[This message was edited by kyrule2 on Sun February 01 2004 at 01:16 AM.]

Lucius_Esox
02-01-2004, 04:17 AM
Lol, "clicky" or what!!! Dont know if that is a British term only but think applies to these boards very well. RBJ has taught everyone well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lucius_Esox
02-01-2004, 04:23 AM
Oh yeah, almost forgot I agree with you entirely kyrule2, but no doubt that will get blanked as well, hehe.
The P39 is an excellent plane in FB, but I dont fly it because it is just not realistic. Not a bash just in acordance with almost everything I have ever read about it.. Btw I dont confine that view just to the P39 if the Vb comes out and can fly rings around everything in the sim I wont fly that as well.

DeerHunterUK
02-01-2004, 04:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
You're right. I'm not gonna fight with my British friends. They are OK for tea-drinking twits.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you American chaps are OK too for a bunch of making love in a canoe beer drinkers. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

No1_Moggy
-----
In memory of 'The Few'
http://www.lima1.co.uk/Sharkey/spitfire.jpg
The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk/
Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.

owlwatcher
02-01-2004, 05:57 AM
Would the P-39 have become a standard in US inventory if the Axis had modern bombers?
Am asking this because the P-39 is the only plane in the US inventory to carry different armament.
The .50 are great for use on what was flying.
But .50 are not what I would want for say attacking something like the PE-8.

jensenpark
02-01-2004, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DeerHunterUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
You're right. I'm not gonna fight with my British friends. They are OK for tea-drinking twits.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you American chaps are OK too for a bunch of making love in a canoe beer drinkers. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


Actually thats us Canadians with the beer and canoes!
I think the US folks are ok for a bunch of gun-toting, NASCAR-worshipping bubba's. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Just kiddin...I love my American neighbors. Except for those from New Jersey, because I hate the NJ Devils! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif


No1_Moggy
-----
In memory of 'The Few'
http://www.lima1.co.uk/Sharkey/spitfire.jpg
The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk/
Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://images.ucomics.com/images/doonesbury/strip/thecast/duke2.jpg

"Death before unconsciousness" - Uncle Duke

BerkshireHunt
02-01-2004, 11:47 AM
I've removed my post as it was inflammatory.

[This message was edited by BerkshireHunt on Sun February 01 2004 at 11:00 AM.]

MachineII
02-01-2004, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the brits didnt want the p38 turbos because they where troublesome
same with the props perhaps?
and we know the p38 had issues at cold high alt to begin with with the americans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, NO and NO and NO.

The turbo's were fine; early P-38's were designed for a critical altitude of 16,500, they didn't have nay problems.

The Brits didn't want counter-rotating props because they wanted to simplify their supply chain. NOT because of any mechanical issues.

AND the Brits wanted to use the P-38 for low- to mid- level, apparently, NOT high altitude, stuff. So problems for the model 322 above critical altitude that developed under the 8AF YEARS later. These problems hadn't even been discovered yet, much less a factor in British procurement.

Would be nice if you'd come up with some facts before spouting off.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

MachineII
02-01-2004, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
This was a P-400. The British had a wonderful way of cocking up US aircraft. Like the P-38 the British orderd. "Ya. No Turbo's and take out the guns" but they complain about bad high alt performance, and low armorment. Twits.

Hey, All- American Moron,
According to British historian Bill Gunston (who knows rather more about it than you) the Americans would not provide aircraft fitted with turbos early in the war. Turbochargers were regarded as commercially sensitive because of the high temperature alloys they used and the USA thought it would sacrifice a technological lead if it supplied the British with aircraft so equipped. And according to William Green the yanks would not provide 'handed' engines for the Lightning either- just to be awkward.
The irony of this was that whatever technological lead the American manufacturers thought they would lose was to be more than compensated by the fact that Britain's jet turbine technology was handed to the USA on a plate- all Whittle drawings plus his only working engine (well done Mr Churchill- a bribe to Roosevelt no doubt). The same happened with the Miles M52 supersonic aircraft (which emerged in rocket powered form as the Bell X1) and the magnetron device for focussing radar waves, without which the USA would have had no radar equipment.
So before shooting off your uneducated mouth remember where the USA's technological post war lead came from: German booty and British bribes.
Now run along and play with the other children.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Were those the same Brit's who sold the Soviet's a jet engine? Hmm?

Bill Gunston is a hack. He's done a lot of stuff, not all of it accurate. I used to read his books when I was a kid...very pretty pictures, light on actual hard data. Mostly, as far as this issue of turbos is concerned, he's a hack.

And GREEN? Warplanes-of-the-Third-Reich-I-got-every-third-thing-right-Green?! HAHAHAHAHA. Get a new library.

There are enthusisasts and experts who have made whole careers out of one or two planes (like Bodie and Freeman). Try reading Bodie...he's a REAL expert, not the kind who prints books with pretty pictures. And NO, the Brits refused the Turbo's on the P-38 for their own reasons. Get over it.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

Aaron_GT
02-01-2004, 12:29 PM
AFAIK the British (and the French for that
matter, as this was prior to the fall of France)
wanted non turbosupercharged engines as then
they would be interchangable with other Allison
engined aircraft they had. Since the UK
and France were at the end of a long supply
chain dependent on unpredictable political
issues at that far end, it was a sensible
decision at the time. The engines selected
lacked the contra rotating gearing for the
same reason - simplification of procurement
and replacement.

So the suggestion that the export of
turbosuperchargers was banned is incorrect
as far as I have read.

With regard to the P-400, the British didn't
**** that up. It was essentially a P39D, so
it was no more cocked up than any other P39D
the USAAC/F might have had. The British did
change the armament, however. The .30s and
.50s became .303s to match the UK supply chain.
The 37mm cannon was replaced with a 20mm
cannon to both simplify the supply chain and
to try to overcome a problem with excessive
gas build up in the cockpit when using the
37mm gun. (I presume this problem was later
fixed by Bell).

Slater_51st
02-01-2004, 01:28 PM
From the Amazing George Welch article at Planes and Pilots of WWII.

"The bad news was that is was flying the hopeless Bell P-39 Airacobra. Welch found himself flying mostly ground support missions, this being largely due to the P-39's poor combat performance and its limited range. Certainly, the 37mm cannon was useful against ground targets, but the Bell was at a serious disadvantage when facing Japanese fighters. This was largely the fault of it being fitted with an Allison engine that lacked a two speed, two stage supercharger. This meant that performance dropped off quickly above 12,000 ft. At the altitudes necessary to engage the Japanese bombers and fighters, the P-39 was an absolute dog. Welch did not view the lack of performance at altitude as the primary sin of the P-39. What truly turned Welch against the Airacobra was its limited combat radius. With the majority of air to air engagements being fought beyond the reach of the Bell, opportunities to shoot down more Japanese were nearly nonexistant."

So, if you can't get high enough or fly long enough to shoot down the enemy, you be kinda screwed eh?

The Russians, iirc, flew at much lower altitudes and also removed lots of weight from the aircraft.

Just some food for thought.

S! Slate

_51st_Slater at Hyperlobby
Oblt_A_Wolf at il2skins.com

Bill_Lester
02-01-2004, 01:52 PM
As a couple of previous respondents have noted, what is great performance in one theater can be poor performance in another. The P-39 worked well for the Soviets because most of their fighting was relatively close to the ground-the flight regime where the Airacobra shined. Put those same Soviets in those same P39's, stripped of armor and wing-mounted .30's or not, at 20,000 feet above Berlin and they'd be flaming toast. With caviar of course... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Another respondent mentioned that he thought the stall/spin modelling wasn't very well done. Personally I think it's a nasty bugger to fly with a horrendous, no-warning stall. It seems to duplicate everything I've read about the Airacobra. I've personally never been able to recover from a P-39 spin. Has anyone reading this been able to determine how to keep from burrowing a deep hole in Mother Russia when this happens to them?

Skullin
02-01-2004, 02:10 PM
"Personally I think it's a nasty bugger to fly with a horrendous, no-warning stall. It seems to duplicate everything I've read about the Airacobra"

totally agree, where does anyone get off saying that it doesn't stall enough? i stall the bird at least once every flight, and some of those turn into flat spins, where you might as well hit eject immediately.

kyrule2
02-01-2004, 02:20 PM
Jensenpark, I'm from New Jersey. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif But I'm a Carolina Hurricanes fan, and I suffer. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif My brothers are huge Devils fans, so you can hate them if you like.

Bill Lester and Skullin, if you're stalling the P-39 consistently then you must be jerking the stick like Pee-Wee Herman in a movie theater. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

jensenpark
02-01-2004, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
Jensenpark, I'm from New Jersey. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif But I'm a Carolina Hurricanes fan, and I suffer. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif My brothers are huge Devils fans, so you can hate them if you like.


http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point, I should rephrase: I dislike the NJ Devils fans...not those who live there. Actually my brother lives down there...in Audobon City (sp?) just north of Philly near the NJ/PA border...I'm waiting till it warms up a bit to go visit. Understand it is near lots of great Civil War sites.

http://images.ucomics.com/images/doonesbury/strip/thecast/duke2.jpg

"Death before unconsciousness" - Uncle Duke

Xiolablu3
02-01-2004, 07:15 PM
sigh

Xiolablu3
02-01-2004, 07:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
This was a P-400. The British had a wonderful way of cocking up US aircraft. Like the P-38 the British orderd. "Ya. No Turbo's and take out the guns" but they complain about bad high alt performance, and low armorment. Twits.

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage, u are a tosser.

Can't u see the big picture for once instead of all this 'USA ownz all' attitude?? I fear for the world sometimes, I really do.

Osirisx9
02-01-2004, 08:16 PM
If the P-39 were so Uber everyone would be flying the thing. Take the La-7s and Yaks. They are nothing but Zeros on steriods. Its amazing how a server would fill up when they are enabled.

Osiris_X9

Saburo_0
02-02-2004, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
If the P-39 bled at least SOME energy it would be more believable in FB. The inclusion of some sort of stall would be nice too, god knows they modelled stalling well enough on planes like the 190 & P-47 well enough. I believe the P-39 was improved by the Soviets, but no way do I believe it is what is represented in FB, especially where energy bleed and forgiveness are concerned. I miss the P-39 from IL-2 as I like flying planes that feel real and have character (P-47, FW-190, & P-51 for example).

]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno looking at a pic of a refurbished P-39 right now & man does she have clean lines. Nothing sticking out until you get to the cockpit. Since most late war designs improved aerodynamics by moving inlets away from the nose & back under the fuselage, I think this would help her hold speed & energy.
Now I don't know how you can determine E-bleed in turns or anything like that, so i may be wrong, but i bet the P-39 has a pretty low amount of drag.

As for stall & forgiveness, The P-51 was a good turner but with a wicked stall with no buffeting to worn of its approach (accorrding to an article comparing it with the Corsair)

The P-47 was no turner & should be sluggish in that respect. The FW190 turns but once again not very well & you give up way too much speed to hold sustained turns, so I usually turn alittle roll turn a little roll & roll some more.

IMHO the P-39 should be a better turner than all the planes you mention, with the exception of the 'Stang at high speed & especially when using combat flaps.

As for Flying planes that feel real & have character.....Kyrule man, you used to be such a nice objective dude. You got me into the Yak9T!
don't turn into a sullen Luft driver http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Besides maybe we'll get a tempest soon!

NegativeGee
02-02-2004, 10:02 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
This was a P-400. The British had a wonderful way of cocking up US aircraft. Like the P-38 the British orderd. "Ya. No Turbo's and take out the guns" but they complain about bad high alt performance, and low armorment. Twits.

Gib
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While you are a great modeller (as viewed by your contributions to FB), nothing exuses comments like that.

SECUDUS was certainly inviting arguement with his post (not the only forum member who uses this approach..... yes you know who you are!) but if no one replies, its on page 2 in no time at all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway, thanks to those who managed to discuss the P-39 without the flames, as your posts were informative http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

kyrule2
02-02-2004, 11:04 PM
Saburo, OUCH!

I AM an objective guy. We've posted together for a long time so I respect your opinion.

I agree with what you are saying about the other planes but there really is no stall characteristics to the P-39 anymore. Many P-39 drivers will tell you this and say they miss the old P-39 from IL-2 as well. I'm not luftwhining, I still like to take the P-39 for a spin now and again. A few threads back in ORR I agreed that the 37mm seemed a bit disappointing in terms of destructive power when many did not. Trust me, I'm still objective.

And I agree about the P-39's aerodynamics, they were very advanced for the time and the plane has sweet lines. Still, I play this game ALOT and find the lack of energy bleed on the P-39 a bit off and I'm not even close to being alone on this. I can live with it either way, no big deal. Just throwing out my opinion.

LOL, I remember the Yak days. Gotta love the concept of a light, maneuverable plane with a devastating cannon strapped to the front with good trajectory. The Yak-9T. I remember when the big cannon Yaks were just devastating online, don't see them much anymore. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

And you remember my fondness for the Tempest http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Can't wait to fly that beast. I'm looking forward to the Typhoon (hopefully)/ Tempest probably more than any other plane.

Anyway, don't worry I'm still objective. Going through my posts should make that obvious. Though I do harp on a few points about my favorite plane (FW-190), they are consistent. Namely the poor climb of the A-9 which is the same as the A-8 which is way off. And the need for a complex DM and the elimination of the "2 bullets = 1 less wing" thing, and the "scratched paint = severly dipping wing and huge loss of speed" thing. These things are generally known now so I don't think I'm whining and a complex DM should solve both I hope.

Your friend,

Kyrule2.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

Saburo_0
02-04-2004, 12:25 AM
Kyrule,

Didn't mean to disappear, but i've been sick.

Sorry if I came across too harsh, didn't mean to. and eah you've always been concsistent. I was looking through some old posts I'd made, & realized that a lack of induced drag (?) or drag caused by turning etc, seems to be a repeat theme. Unfortunately it is often linked to VVS planes only by some posters.
This may well be a problem with FBs FMs (but certainly doesn't make the game unplayable.)

I'm pretty open minded about all this honestly. i jsut feel the need to put the breaks on a bit once complaints get rolling. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

tttiger had a great post IMO in the bias thread (well, one of those threads http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) i saved it so may bring it up for discusion sometime.

Personally I think the P39 was better than some of the others in this thread were giving it credit for being.
I know alot of old IL2 P39 pilots miss the old idiosyncrasies of the bird; tho I'm not so sure that the twitchiness of the old FM was more realistic than the one we have now. It's a very good question tho IMHO. hard to find good pilot reports on the handling of the 39 in English it seems. Guys either loved it or hated it.

I'm looking forward to the Spitfire V LF even if she is at a disadvantage compared to the competition. haven't heard anything firm on the Tempest yet just rumours but hold out hope.

kyrule2
02-04-2004, 01:43 AM
Saburo,

"This may well be a problem with FBs FMs (but certainly doesn't make the game unplayable.)"

Couldn't agree more, best piece of software ever made.

"Personally I think the P39 was better than some of the others in this thread were giving it credit for being."

Couldn't agree more.

"I'm looking forward to the Spitfire V LF even if she is at a disadvantage compared to the competition."

Definitely, can't wait to see those British roundels.

"haven't heard anything firm on the Tempest yet just rumours but hold out hope."

Last I heard it will be made flyable some time after first expansion. I thought I also heard that it would be in first expansion as AI. Either way I can't wait.

Good to see you again, hope all is well.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

RedSpar
02-04-2004, 02:31 AM
The real reason the P-39 didn't have a turbosupercharger had nothing to do with British tea drinking twits but rather pocket protector wearing, pencil sharpening, US NACA nerds.

Larry Bell was wasn't sure why the XP-39 couldn't crack the 400mph barrier so he had the airframe tested in the NACA windtunnel.

Here is a excerpt from the excellent book Warbird Tech Bell P-39/P-63 (read in yellow)

http://www.redspar.com/Cobratest.jpg

The main problem was the fuselage was just too small for the turbosupercharger version...That is why the P-63 was made 25% larger than the P-39 in most dimensions to accomodate it.

The poor P-39 was just a little ahead of its time. It could have been world class with more time.

http://www.redspar.com/ubisig.gif