PDA

View Full Version : P-39 - P-400 Pepped Up?



Blue_Baron
05-02-2008, 06:02 PM
Yes - it is a fact the Soviets had great success with these aircraft.

How ever, they were dogs in the Pacific. The Japanese considered them meat on the table.

In Il2, flying against a P39 is like taking on late war aircraft.

Is it me? Seriously.

It's like the P39 has great flight qualities like all the Soviet aircraft do, because the Soviets used them.

Is it true that all the Soviet aircraft are modeled to be superior to other Allied and Axis aircraft intentioanlly?

I'm all for patriotism on the Soviet side, but it ruins the game.

Blue_Baron
05-02-2008, 06:02 PM
Yes - it is a fact the Soviets had great success with these aircraft.

How ever, they were dogs in the Pacific. The Japanese considered them meat on the table.

In Il2, flying against a P39 is like taking on late war aircraft.

Is it me? Seriously.

It's like the P39 has great flight qualities like all the Soviet aircraft do, because the Soviets used them.

Is it true that all the Soviet aircraft are modeled to be superior to other Allied and Axis aircraft intentioanlly?

I'm all for patriotism on the Soviet side, but it ruins the game.

M_Gunz
05-02-2008, 06:17 PM
Seriously you might want to check on what variants of P-39 you're comparing under the same name.
The "Iron Dog" P-39D is not the same P-39N's and Q's used by the Russians just for starts.

P-39 piloting is different from front engine piloting as well. Different reactions are required
which really threw many pilots. And there were US pilots who sis love the later P-39's.

Lastly the Russians used the P-39's in very different conditions and alts than the US did.

It's no mystery once you stop comparing them all as the same and look at how they were used.

VW-IceFire
05-02-2008, 06:31 PM
Very quickly...look at the basic history of the P-39 in USAAF service.

The prototype had high expectations due to its modern design, turbocharged engine, and very low drag coefficient not to mention a really big gun which would have done great against theoretical bomber forces attacking continental United States. But with the added weight, removal of the turbocharger, and some other changes the prototype turned fighter became a large disappointment. High altitude performance was a problem and the plane was unstable in certain situations with its centrally mounted engine.

The P-39s first encounters with the Japanese, over New Guinea early on in that campaign, had the plane at a huge disadvantage. In experienced pilots flying planes that had been only recently unloaded were forced into high altitude combat against Japanese bombers and fighters over the Owen Stanley mountains. At this stage of the war the Japanese pilots were highly trained precision fliers with a great degree of confidence and the USAAF still didn't know allot about the Zero, the Oscar, or many other Japanese types they considered inferior.

Disaster ensued until the P-39 and P-40 were supplemented with the P-38 which had the range, high altitude performance, and superior speed to compete with the Japanese planes (and really defeat them). At that point the P-39s were pushed to tactical warfare flying low over the mountains and passes supporting the troops and from what I've read the impressions of the plane improved somewhat as the cannon was great use for blasting targets on the ground.

But the P-39s reputation never improved.

The later versions were better but saw very little use by the USAAF but the Russians loved them. Why? Because they flew them down low where its performance was acceptable, they could out turn the 109 in most situations, and the radio was of great quality which was huge for the Russians (that were used to their own units which were heavy and not as good early in the war).

So try this...go into the QMB...set the altitude as 5000 meters and setup a battle between P-39D-1 versus veteran A6M2-21s or A6M3s and let us know how it goes. You may still come out the victor if you're good but the P-39 will be anything but unplesant at that altitude compared to the opposition...human or AI.

I happen to think that the P-39 is one of the most underrated aircraft in the history books. The same story gets repeated and repeated but the authors seem to lack very little knowledge of the later 5th AF exploits or much about what the Russians really appreciated the P-39 for. Some USAAF pilots that trained on P-39s actually considered them quite good...I forget which ace thought they were great. Certainly quirky and unliked by all...but not nearly as bad as was said about them. The circumstances from which the opinions were later formed plays a huge role into this.

Also...Soviet aircraft are just like any others in game. Nothing special.

Grey_Mouser67
05-02-2008, 06:40 PM
If you get into the technical data, you'll find the P-39 outperformed the early Zeke's in all categories except turn below 12,000 ft...that includes rate of climb! Problem is the Zekes always had a range advantage and an altitude advantage so the "iron dog" earned its nickname.

Combat over Russia happened at low altitude and the P-39 was quite good at this altitude and faired well. I'd say the D-2 may be on the ambitious side pershaps but otherwise I think the ingame airacobra's to be quite accurate....online gaming typically happens at low altitude as well.

M_Gunz
05-03-2008, 01:16 AM
The Russians worked with Bell on extensive changes to create the N and Q models that improved
the P-39 series greatly even before the P-63 King Cobra. You can't compare those to the D models.

<A HREF="http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p39_airacobra.html" TARGET=_blank>This article for example does not mention
the large structural changes going from D to N models as we here have seen posted documents of.
But otherwise a good article, just short on Russian information.</A>

Aaron_GT
05-03-2008, 07:02 AM
It's worth noting that a mid-mounted engine was suggested by quite a few companies in the late 1930s to mid 1940s, especially for carrier aircraft as it was felt that tail dragger undercarriage was easier to make robust enough for carrier landing but moving the pilot forward would improve view.

The development that led up to the Fairey Gannet was based on coupled, centrally mounted engines driving a tractor prop. In the end this plane received more of an under-floor mounting than a true central engine mount.

rsalopek
05-03-2008, 11:08 AM
I have always felt the P-39 family of aircraft to one of the best looking AC to come out of WW2. It's a real shame that the USAAC was short sighted when it decided to eliminate the supercharger off the production AC. Had they kept the supercharger the combat reports for the Airacobra might have been somewhat different for combat above 10K. But even without the supercharger if USAAC higher up's would and should have given more credibility to the reports out of China about the Zero and Oscar. Then passing that info quickly to the training and squadron level to develope the proper tactics, the Airacobra might have faired much better.

M_Gunz
05-03-2008, 02:21 PM
It was a turbocharger (what P-47 has) that was taken out and may have been so because of
problems.

Aaron_GT
05-03-2008, 04:29 PM
From memory (which is fallible!) wasn't one of the reasons for the elimination of the turbocharger to allow the profile to be cleaned up and the weight reduced? It was hoped that this would offset the loss of the turbocharger. Obviously this wasn't the case. But look at the size of the P-47, a plane designed around the turbocharger. And in a sort of evolutionary convergence the last P-47 derivative was pencilled in for armament with 37mm cannon.

M_Gunz
05-03-2008, 05:46 PM
I found some mention of the decision to drop the TC. (http://www.aviationshoppe.com/Bell-P39-Air-Cobra.html)

Here's a few bits:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The design concept proved attractive enough to the Army Air corps to win an order for a single prototype to be completed by October 7, 1937. The XP-39 flew for the first time on April 6th 1938 and 12 months later, after extensive evaluation, 12 YP-39s were ordered for a wider service test, plus a single YP-39A without a turbo charger for the Allison V-1710 engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">After service evaluations, certain modifications were recommended for the model such as the introduction of fairing doors for the main wheel units; a lower canopy profile, resetting of the engine air intake and coolant radiators, and the deletion of the turbo charger. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The original prototype, modified to include these modifications flew under the designation YP-39B. As a result of the improved performance of the aircraft the turbocharger was deleted from all future models </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps if it had been evaluated a year later in light of the Bf 109E-4 things might have
been different. Perhaps not, the extra weight did not add speed or turn down low, would hurt
instead the turn and climb.

How does the size and wing area of the P-39 compare to the P-47?

Wildnoob
05-03-2008, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blue_Baron:
Is it true that all the Soviet aircraft are modeled to be superior to other Allied and Axis aircraft intentioanlly? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

late war Soviet figthers where not "modeled to be superior" they where in fact superior at low and medium altitude to most allied and axis aircraft.

see the YAK-3, for example, luftwaffe pilot's generally preffer avoid it then figth with it.

the superb flying characteristics of the late war Soviet figthers where not very know, even many people think they where in fact inferior and made only by superior numbers.

I make a afirmation, but that's my opinion. but in fact, it's not really just my opinion, there are aircraft data wich show this. for example, the turn ratios of an LA-7 is 18 seconds, for a BF-109 from later G series is 22 seconds. without account the aircraft superior speed on medium and lower altitude. in the same example, an LA-7 top speed on deck is 612 km/h, at 6,000 meters is 680 km/h. a BF-109 G-14 as 568 km/h at sea level and 665 km/h at 6,000 meters.

they are superb aircraft at low and medium altitude. they are probably every figther pilot's dream. aircraft wich combine excellent speed characteristics and great maneuverbility. it's main disadvantages where short range and lack of high altitude performance.

the VVS take very high losses during the course of WWII, but the Soviet aeronautical industry learn from it's mistakes and devolped excellent aircraft for it's fligth doutrine.

that's the way I can describe the VVS late war figthers in my view.

MrOblongo
05-03-2008, 06:44 PM
Well, usually i dont talk about this but...just fly in a P-39Q-10 in some dogfight server...

25% fuel...100% throttle... and u will see..try to avoid a spin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

M_Gunz
05-04-2008, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrOblongo:
Well, usually i dont talk about this but...just fly in a P-39Q-10 in some dogfight server...

25% fuel...100% throttle... and u will see..try to avoid a spin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can but it takes skill. Just as it was IRL, P-39 bit quite a few pilots that treated them
as front-engined planes.

M_Gunz
05-04-2008, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
see the YAK-3, for example, luftwaffe pilot's generally preffer avoid it then figth with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Below certain altitude.

Erik Schilling makes similar notes wrt P-40 speeds. He was an AVG pilot as well as USAAF.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Another illustration was the P-51D that arrived in service in 1944,
had a top speed of 437 mph at 25,000 feet. This same P-51's top
speed at 5,000 was only 315 mph. The P-40 could actually exceed
this speed at 5,000 feet. The P-40 with the same supercharged
engine would have exceeded the P-51' speed of 437 at 25,000 feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's some links where I know you'll find gold, much from the mouths of experts:

Usenet archive on P-40's. (http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html)

Index to all Military archives that is from. (http://yarchive.net/mil/index.html)

Index to archives on Aircraft and Flying. (http://yarchive.net/air/index.html)

DKoor
05-04-2008, 07:39 AM
P-39 seems to be teh zoom king.

PBNA-Boosher
05-04-2008, 11:43 AM
Use the plane correctly and it will never let you down. Use energy tactics and BnZ with the P-39 to win against Zeros. There is no other way to beat them in a fight.

Bearcat99
05-04-2008, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blue_Baron:
Yes - it is a fact the Soviets had great success with these aircraft.

How ever, they were dogs in the Pacific. The Japanese considered them meat on the table.

In Il2, flying against a P39 is like taking on late war aircraft.

Is it me? Seriously.

It's like the P39 has great flight qualities like all the Soviet aircraft do, because the Soviets used them.

Is it true that all the Soviet aircraft are modeled to be superior to other Allied and Axis aircraft intentioanlly?

I'm all for patriotism on the Soviet side, but it ruins the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is you...

Two facts in this sim

1- Any plane in the right hands is a deadly weapon...

2- The AI always have the "right hands" when compared to you, so you have to fly well and smart.

As for the "Russian bias".. well that is another one of those well worn out topics that you have brought up (See your 50 cal thread..) that has been bludgeoned into infamy on these boards.. Personally I think a lot of it is sour grapes.. I know a guy who was a stone cold killer in the FB 2.0 P-47.. which was a feat in and of itself since the FB 2.0 P-47 had a roll rate worse than the He-11 if my memory serves me correctly..

Practicve more.... whatever this sim is to you now.. it does get better with practice.

tragentsmith
05-05-2008, 04:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">illustration was the P-51D that arrived in service in 1944,
had a top speed of 437 mph at 25,000 feet. This same P-51's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, if you want practice, come on Warclouds server. There's a guy there that makes miracle against late 1944 allied aircraft with a 110G2. Not the best plane to fight 51s and Spit IXe, but he knows how to use it strong points against them.

Bremspropeller
05-05-2008, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">see the YAK-3, for example, luftwaffe pilot's generally preffer avoid it then figth with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats wrong, just as the story about the order not to engage "Yaks without nose-installed oil-coolers".

The late-war Yaks were VERY capable, but that didn't make Lw pilots avoid them. They were more cautios, yes, but they didn't refuse to engage.

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 06:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tragentsmith:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">illustration was the P-51D that arrived in service in 1944,
had a top speed of 437 mph at 25,000 feet. This same P-51's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, if you want practice, come on Warclouds server. There's a guy there that makes miracle against late 1944 allied aircraft with a 110G2. Not the best plane to fight 51s and Spit IXe, but he knows how to use it strong points against them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are -some- of Erik Schilling's words concerning speed, alt and different planes.
Erik Schilling being an Ace Pilot and original AVG member from WWII.
I linked the article and more.

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 06:49 AM
Interviews with Russian WWII Aces, they tell how it was.

N. Golodnikov (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm)

Kardopoltsev (http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/pilots/kardopoltsev/kardopoltsev.htm)

Soviet Warplanes Pilot index (http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/pilots/pilots.htm)

Lend-Lease site index (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/index.htm)

These are some I've saved from very good articles and links posted here the past few years.
Some tell very well the tactics as well as the planes, the conditions affecting the outcomes.
I have found that many questions even posed by credited historians are answered by a simple
understanding of situations and tactics that those historians were not aware of or did not
put together.

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-05-2008, 02:09 PM
If US pilots learned to fly the P-39 like they did the Hellcat and others the results would have been the same. Many US pilots thought the P-40 sucked as well then it was shown how easily it could dominate. Ya see, new pilots are new pilots regardless if its real world or PC Sims. An experienced and intelligent pilot makes the difference. Just because you may be getting smoked by P-39s while flying a Zero or Tony does not mean the P-39 is too good...the other pilot was just better, fact.

S!

Wildnoob
05-05-2008, 03:05 PM
I've been too radicaly cited the Soviet aircraft, sorry. they can try avoid then directly, but are the enemy, they couldn't just avoid figthing the enemy.

but, I maintein my affirmations about their performance.

Lurch1962
05-05-2008, 07:02 PM
He he... just this past weekend I got into flying the early P-39s (mostly the D-1 and D-2) for the first time since trying them out way back with the release of FB. On the deck they own the 109F! Speed AND maneuverability--what a combo!

As I said, this was the first time strapping one on in over 3 years, and I stalled out only twice in a great many combats. Smooth stick work, a good sensitivity profile and listening for the wing burbling when near stall will keep you out of the dreaded flat spin.

JG53Frankyboy
05-06-2008, 01:50 AM
indeed, the P-39D-2 is very powerfull.

much superiour over the D-1/-400 (wich have the same flightperformance in game).

the D-2 is performaing better than the N and Q-1.

WOLFMondo
05-06-2008, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Seriously you might want to check on what variants of P-39 you're comparing under the same name.
The "Iron Dog" P-39D is not the same P-39N's and Q's used by the Russians just for starts.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually really like the D2 variant. I like the N1 for the guns, lots of guns but the D2 seems to fly better and is certainly faster and zooms nicely. Given the chance I acually like using this plane against early/mid war IJN/IJA planes because compared to them its a hot rod.

Against any German aircraft its a different story. I like flying the P39 but no matter what version I always feel like the underdog. It's no FW190 in terms of being a killer.

VW-IceFire
05-06-2008, 04:09 PM
The D-2 is actually something of a mystery to me. Its got waaay too much power and performance than the other models...I'm not sure why or where it comes from. It really shouldn't be much different than a D-1.

If people are running a historical scenario they are better off using the D-1 or N-1 than the D-2 for 1942 or even 1943 battles.

I would love to know where the D-2 modeling comes from.

ImpStarDuece
05-06-2008, 08:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tragentsmith:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">illustration was the P-51D that arrived in service in 1944,
had a top speed of 437 mph at 25,000 feet. This same P-51's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, if you want practice, come on Warclouds server. There's a guy there that makes miracle against late 1944 allied aircraft with a 110G2. Not the best plane to fight 51s and Spit IXe, but he knows how to use it strong points against them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are -some- of Erik Schilling's words concerning speed, alt and different planes.
Erik Schilling being an Ace Pilot and original AVG member from WWII.
I linked the article and more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know I'll get howled down and probably crucified for taking exception to the words of someone like Eric Shilling, but this statement is plain WRONG.


At 67" of manifold the P-51D was good for between 375 and 385 mph at 5,000 feet. Flight testing charts are here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-24771-level-blue.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342-level.jpg


The Allison engined P-51 was good for about 365-375 mph at 5,000 feet. Some versions topped out at 410 mph at about 14,000 feet. No P-40 got near that level of speed.

The P-51 was a FAR more aerodynamic design than the P-40. Generally speaking, it was 25 mph faster at any given altitude on the same power.

Blue_Baron
05-06-2008, 08:52 PM
I've learned allot with this thread. It is awesome to know there are others with a love for WW2 aircraft.

To Bearcats comments - on full real settings, feel that I am almost unbeatable. Have had issues with arcaders who use external views instead of piloting skill and some graphic wizardry to rack up high scores. I have flown against these same people on full real and they are lost. Flying full real once with a Maachi 2000 ran up allot of P-40s, just like they did in Africa.

I can work magic with the A6M3, I know that for sure.

With a lack of team fighting on the blue side, it is hard to show great stats when you are lining up on someone and get bounced by three Reds, whilst three to four blues fly around and do nothing.

This goes for bomber flying also, if blue you are a one man show.

I have flown Stukas allot because I get sick of the lack of blue teamwork on the servers. It is more often than not.

That being said - any pilot can count on me to save them or get someone off their tail.

The Blue Baron
An actual wwII Luftwaffe Pilot.

M_Gunz
05-06-2008, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
I know I'll get howled down and probably crucified for taking exception to the words of someone like Eric Shilling, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. HE didn't present sources or conditions or data. You did.

JG53Frankyboy
05-07-2008, 02:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The D-2 is actually something of a mystery to me. Its got waaay too much power and performance than the other models...I'm not sure why or where it comes from. It really shouldn't be much different than a D-1.

If people are running a historical scenario they are better off using the D-1 or N-1 than the D-2 for 1942 or even 1943 battles.

I would love to know where the D-2 modeling comes from. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the D-2 had actually a more powerfull engane than the D-1 and N
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_6.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p39_6.html)

also backed up by "America's hundred thousand":
in that the P-39D-1 has a V-1710-35, with 1150hp as highest output in military setting ( no WEP available).
the D-2 has a V-1710-63 with also 1150hp in military, BUT here are 1590hp in WEP availabe.............

VW-IceFire
05-07-2008, 06:16 PM
Woa...1150hp normally but in WEP 1590! Interesting...when was this model adopted and why didn't the N or Q series benefit from that?

DKoor
05-09-2008, 06:48 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
IIRC even Bf-109s haven't gained that much when drunk. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-16-2008, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">on full real settings, feel that I am almost unbeatable. Have had issues with arcaders who use external views instead of piloting skill and some graphic wizardry to rack up high scores. I have flown against these same people on full real and they are lost. Flying full real once with a Maachi 2000 ran up allot of P-40s, just like they did in Africa. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dood...seriously. I fly in the same servers as you and you average like a .2 k/d ratio and 3% hit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

M_Gunz
05-17-2008, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the D-2 had actually a more powerfull engane than the D-1 and N
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_6.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p39_6.html)

also backed up by "America's hundred thousand":
in that the P-39D-1 has a V-1710-35, with 1150hp as highest output in military setting ( no WEP available).
the D-2 has a V-1710-63 with also 1150hp in military, BUT here are 1590hp in WEP availabe............. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Baugher says 1325 hp V-1710-63 (E6) engine which leaves question of which source is right.
Did Baugher take a median value between Military and WEP?

Did the P&W WEP include water injection?

R_Target
05-18-2008, 12:09 PM
V-1710-63 on P-39D-2:

Military: 1150hp @ 42"HG 15 minutes
Takeoff: 1325hp @ 51"Hg 5 minutes
WEP: 1590hp @ 61"Hg 5 minutes

V-1710-85 on P-39N, P-39Q:

Military: 1125hp @ 44.5"HG 15 minutes
Takeoff: 1200hp @ 50.5"Hg 5 minutes
WEP: 1420hp @ 57"Hg 5 minutes

MaxGunz, are you asking if P-39 had ADI? If so, the answer is no AFAIK.

mortoma
05-22-2008, 08:46 PM
I play offline most of the time using the built in Dgen campaign missions. One of my favorite sub-campaigns is Berlin and 3 out of 4 times I play German. And when I play German I am absolutely scared to death of the Q-1 and Q-10 P-39s!! A Yak-3 or LA-5 or 7 can be deadly but I usually greet them with less fear than those AI guided P-39s. I have always wondered why they are so deadly and harder to deal with than aircraft that were supposed to be far better performers. They seem to zoom around as well or better than the Yak-3s and LAs I encounter. I can deal with them but I always have a harder time with them for some reason. They are what they are ( AI ) and I'm not saying they are hard to deal with, just harder. Probably harder to kill and defend against than they should be.

On the other hand if I try to fly them on the Russian side I don't find them to be all that hot. Not bad but not like a LA-7! So I just don't get it. Nope, just don't get it at all...lol.

VW-IceFire
05-22-2008, 08:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
V-1710-63 on P-39D-2:

Military: 1150hp @ 42"HG 15 minutes
Takeoff: 1325hp @ 51"Hg 5 minutes
WEP: 1590hp @ 61"Hg 5 minutes

V-1710-85 on P-39N, P-39Q:

Military: 1125hp @ 44.5"HG 15 minutes
Takeoff: 1200hp @ 50.5"Hg 5 minutes
WEP: 1420hp @ 57"Hg 5 minutes

MaxGunz, are you asking if P-39 had ADI? If so, the answer is no AFAIK. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
WOW....so that is impressive. Why isn't the D-2 mentioned or regarded higher? Its a super plane for its year...handling issues aside.

M_Gunz
05-23-2008, 03:34 PM
Within altitude restrictions the P-39 was hot from intro onwards, a very fast plane.

The Russians had the low to mid alt thing going so they loved it but the US pilots hit the FTH
and wanted more so did not. Speed is not power-loading so the name Iron Pig stuck. Compare
to P-47 but that had 8 50's, could carry a huge ordinance load and turbo-charged (no gear change)
halfway to the moon.
Besides all that, the mid-engine P-39 needs to be flown differently near and at the edges, and
it departs flight differently. That caused a lot of accidents and I'm sure near-heart-attacks.
Not all pilots were up to that. Be sure the Russians either had special training or lost a few
but then they learned to handle the I-16 that required learning as well.

Did they ever fit a paddle prop to the Cobras?

I think just skip the D2 and go straight to P-63, hehehe.

R_Target
05-24-2008, 09:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
WOW....so that is impressive. Why isn't the D-2 mentioned or regarded higher? Its a super plane for its year...handling issues aside. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lousy altitude performance is my guess. When you top out at 12,000 ft., and the Zekes are escorting at 24,000 ft., there's bound to be trouble.

Some of the New Guinea P-39 squadrons were referred to as the "Port Moresby Fishing Fleet" because they had to go out to sea, away from incoming bandits, to get enough altitude to turn back into the fight. If it wasn't over by the time they showed up.

DKoor
05-24-2008, 12:06 PM
Could it be also lack of information about strength of enemy aircraft too?

VW-IceFire
05-24-2008, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
WOW....so that is impressive. Why isn't the D-2 mentioned or regarded higher? Its a super plane for its year...handling issues aside. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lousy altitude performance is my guess. When you top out at 12,000 ft., and the Zekes are escorting at 24,000 ft., there's bound to be trouble.

Some of the New Guinea P-39 squadrons were referred to as the "Port Moresby Fishing Fleet" because they had to go out to sea, away from incoming bandits, to get enough altitude to turn back into the fight. If it wasn't over by the time they showed up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True! That does make sense...but 1500hp in that plane, at the time, at low level makes it such a potent tactical weapon. I know they used it tactically but I didn't realize what a hot plane they had. I always regarded the D-2 as a weird aberration of performance and rare prototype specifications. So this is cool!