Before you beat up on this plane too much the Allison engine killed a great many designs for the Americans. The P-40 was put to great use in the pacific theater but was also limited at altitude just like the P-39. The P-51 was nothing until they replaced the engine with a Merlin. To my knowledge only the P-38 really became a great plane but only because it had a turbo charger. All the other great American planes had air cooled engines like the Corsair and Hellcat.
The opening frame exposes one of the key reasons this aircraft was loved so by the men who flew it. The mid-engine design allows the cockpit to move forward, notice that the canopy is far enough forward that pilots can see down to the sides past the leading edge of the wing. This gave the P-39 an almost unique advantage. Look at the P-51's field of view, it's awful.
Marry this girl to a Rolls Royce 1650 series engine, a generously aspected blister canopy and she would have ended the war in 1943.
The Aircobra suited the russian lowlevel fighting but not the British highlevel fighting. You cant blame the aeroplane if the airforce select another tactic.
@aon10003 considering bell knew the raf wanted an high altuitude fighter, why would they give them an aircraft designed for low level? Secondly the airacobra wasn't designed for low level it was just what the russians used it for, mainly around the cannon in the nose.
The British disliked the absence of a turbocharger or a supercharger, so altitude performance was poor when compared with indigenous types. In Soviet hands they had good use because it was a tactical weapon, making use of the massive 37mm cannon. Portugal had some, in the 40's, retained after landing in Lisbon, due to bad weather or mechanical failure or even because the pilots want to take a coffee...
P 39's in Portugal were not used vastly because of mechanical failures and lack of mantaince, this because, when Portuguese ordered the cobra's, they weren't really instructed to maintain the plane...
Well, i read about ir a long time ago... I am in The 1st anti-aircraft regiment of Queluz
@Antunez99 Os Tugas não encomendaram P-39, eles aterraram na Portela em trânsito para o Norte de África, ficando internados e sendo incorporados na então arma de aeronaútica. Por isso não tinham material de substituição ou conhecimento técnico. Em igual circunstancias obtivemos um P-38.
Soviets had lot's of these P-39's and P-51's in 1944 but they lost dogfights agaist Finns by 1:20 (especially against Bf-109 G). The skill level of Soviet pilots was remarkable low. One of their "flying ace" was found in embarrassing situation after the war when soviets found that almost all his kill claims against Finns were just fantasies. Soviet pilots shut down 17 finnish Bf-109's while finnish bf-109 pilots shut down 663 soviet aircraft (about 70% of them were fighters)
The British bitching and bellyaching about the Aircobra is kind of funny, considering one of the top Russian Aces (Pakrischen (sp?)) with 60 kills against the same German aircraft, did it in an AIrCobra. I'm not saying the Aircobra was all that great - my grandpa thought it sucked too (he loved the P-38). I'm saying next to obsolete Russian bathtubs left over after the blitzkrieg, an AirCobra was a hot little plane in the right hands.
@cobrachoppergirl Correction to my post, the correct spelling of the Russian ace is "Aleksandr Pokryshkin" not Pakrischen. Youtube video on him "P-39 Airacobra - Aleksandr Pokryshkin"
@cobrachoppergirl If you're insinuating that British pilots weren't 'the right hands' for the Aircobra, I suggest you look at The Battle of Britain stats and think again. The RAF had every right to 'bitch and bellyache' about this aeroplane; they were virtually conned by Bell thanks to the misleading blurb the American manufacturer gave them. The spurious claims of a Soviet pilot have nothing to do with it.
@TheMightyHartley No one should insult the British pilots, but the fact is that the Soviets did make great use of the P-39. Not because the Soviets were better pilots, because things like limited range and service ceiling were not big factor on the Eastern Front. Thus the Soviet pilots were able to use the plane to batter advantage.
The point to take here is that NO aircraft is perfect for ALL engagement situations. The world's aeronautical engineers have yet to produce an a/c that performs well in all envelopes (and those that came close were cost-prohibitive). Certain aircraft, owing to their design and powerplant, are ideal for certain environments.
The P-39, which first flew in ’38 and did not enjoy the benefit of a supercharged engine, was superb in a low-altitude, ground-attack or close air-support capacity, despite the fact that it was designed for high-altitude combat. The English, however, were in dire need of any a/c with high-altitude combat characteristics to counter German bomber escorts.
They were desperate and were willing to try anything. Unfortunately, the P-39's powerplant limitations preclude it's effective use in that role. However, the Russians found the P-39 perfectly suited for close-air support and ground attack roles, which was precisely the type of a/c they needed to counter German armor.
@penumbra155 - but they did not use it in this role, as they had no need to (they had the IL-2, remember). But it's a common mistake made when discussing VVS use of the P-400 and P-39 variants. Instead, they were used as fighters - and pretty successfully right up til the end of the war.
On the other hand, other aircraft, such as the P-51 which first flew in ’40 and enjoyed a vastly superior engine made possibly by two years of additional research and development (and funding) proved better suited for high-altitude combat.
However, these stellar aircraft had their limitations as well and were found to be wanting in the low-altitude support role because the a/c’s radiator was situated on the underside of the fuselage which made it vulnerable to ground-fire. So the moral of the story is, each aircraft has it’s own ideal envelop which may or may not meet the needs of the moment.
P-39 haters need to take a breath. The RAF's issue with the P-39/P-400 was high altitude performance over 15,000 feet.
*However* under 15,000 feet the RAF found out in tests that the P-39 could out-turn, out-roll and out-dive the Bf-109. It also had heavier firepower. Eastern Combat was mostly lower altitude so the Soviets could use the plane at its best, and loved it. The Soviets did a lot of fighting with it. They were literally made for each other. Different mission profile meant success.
The Brits gave most of the P-39s/P-400s back to us (they were that disenchanted); they wound up for the most part being sent to the South Pacific where they served with the "Cactus Air Force" on Guadalcanal. As the Zero significantly outclassed the P-39, the USAAF pilots who flew them were indeed courageous. Some lived to transition to P-38s - and get some payback.
@Thedarkcountry i know so much about P 39 u liitle kid,even flew one lately.Better watch out who u talking at.
P 39 called iron Duck,us pilots sometimes destroyed own planes because they feared flying it,no match for the zero.The canon always failed.Only reason russian pilots liked it ,was that their planes at this time of war,were even worse.
The Hurrican in Battle of britain also was crap,but won the battle,because shoot down stukas and bombers.
@SuperTimebandit Post War a Russian heard of US and UK pilots complaint about the cannon on the P-39..
it wasn't accurate enough and it would be better to delete it... The Russian, a leading P-39 ace, said he just flew as close as his could than fire 2 or 3 cannon rounds....couldn't miss, no problem....very effective single hit btw..
@Thedarkcountry p 39 is still crap u can shoot a stuka down with even worse planes than p 39,in a fight with a Bf-g 109 or a focke wulf 190 this plane is useless.
Notwithstanding the success of the P-39 on the Eastern Front (and, to a lesser degree, in the Pacific), it was criminal marketing misrepresenting its capabilities to the RAF. Just one "triumph" of US capitalism, which also contributed to Nazi industry.
@Islanderh93 yeah but what about the carbon monoxide contamination in the cockpit? funny, over 80 years later with the grounded F-22 and F-35;s, America's most modern fighters, they are still having problems with problems about pilot safety. what does that tell you about the US military-industrial complex?
Don't give me a P-39" WWII P-39 pilots limerick as per Chuck Yeager
Do you think the Mighty P-51 Mustang would have had any better place in history without that marvelous Merlin engine inside instead of the original Allison? Both types were consigned to ground attack with the original Allison engine, but only the Mustang eventually got the ponies required and the rest is history!
disguisting, take a gun and build an aeroform round it. At the risk of upsetting it is vulgar. I see it as a short form way of, well, I don't know - actually I do.
@wildhobby It worked pretty well, (aeroform built around cannon) for the Fairchild A-10 Warthog, the gun minus the Gatling style barrels was as big as a Volkswagen Bug and had to be many times as heavy. The Airacobra was considered sleek for her day, (pre- WWII for the USA), but a lack of a high altitude capable supercharger confined the type to ground support missions. Chuck Yeager cut his flying ARMY teeth in one and liked it's low altitude performance.
Knock its performance if you will, but don't forget the P39 killed more Axis aircraft than any other U.S. fighter of the war, mostly due to the sheer VOLUME of work it saw in Russian hands. The Soviets only received about 4700 Airacobras, but they kept those planes flying sorties practically 24/7 for the whole duration of the war.
@woodbinedrinker: You said, "Allison engines were always trouble."
I pointed out that it was wildly successful in the P-38. How does that make me a moron? Most versions of the v-1710 motor were incredibly tough and reliable. They just never put a decent blower on it. The engine itself was a brilliant design. Half the part count of a Merlin. Near total modularity. Tough bottom end. Great piece of engineering. Merlin looks primitive by comparison. Except the later Merlin blowers.
@keissaus: Ive said this about ten times, but the Allison was not inherently a low altitude engine. Only one version went to war with a high altitude compressor and the performance was outstanding. Superchargers are essentially an accessory, not a core part of the engine design. The RR 2stage/2speed blower on the Alli would have easily met Merlin HA performance.
Interesting info on the Airacobra. Lt Col Boyd Wagner became an "ace" in the plane & rated it higher than the P-40 & of course the Russians found it very much to their liking as several of their top scoring pilots flew the "Kobra" with much success against Bf-109s & FW-190s. I know the war over the Steppes was a tactical one fought mostly below 20K ft & that the P-39 was at its best @ low alt. Perhaps this explains much of the difference between the Russian & RAF/USAAC experience with the plane.
Hey, i lhave read somewhere that the shaft from the engine to the propeller sometimes broke. And the splinters then were cutting the balls of the pilot. And because the cannon sometimes did not made more than three shots, the US gave the plane to the russians. Does anyone know more about that?
I was walking around parked WW2 aircraft when I turned around at this air show and this plane caught my eye...I stared at it for a minute then recognizing and aero cobra! I was stunned!
The Aircobra was created according to usaaf specs fo a low to medium altitude fighter, the prototype was very agile and fast, it's when spec changed, like more armor, self sealing tanks, more guns that performance went downhill. also by the time it came out, other countries had created planes far more advanced than anything the US had at the time, the reason the lightning didn't have a supercharger originally, was the same reason the ac didn't, it wasn't expected to fight over 15k feet.
Yeah, the army air force decided they should delete the supercharger for streamlining. And all of a sudden you have a plane with good performance only at low altitude :(
The Aircobra was not a great interceptor, it was meant to be a ground attack plane. That is why it had the 37mm cannon when most US planes only had .50 cals
@jakefree25 The P39 was not designed for ground attack. It was designed for aerial combat, but the USAAF ordered the turbo-superchager be removed. This effectively gutted it's performance at altitude. The Russians used them for what it was designed; air superiority over the battlefield. Russia's top ace, Aleksandr Pokryshkin, scored 45 of his 59 victories in the P-39 IIRC.
@jakefree25 It was not designed to be a ground attack aircraft, it was the russians that turned it into one taking advantage of the cannon in the nose and machine guns above the nose and wings.
To a layman the P-39C looks great, sleek, small, great gun location, and easy to bail out of. A cross between a Yak and a P-51. What was wrong with it? Thanks!
too slow, no altitude, not that maneuverable, reliability problems. Ground attack role was great and the Sovs used a bunch of them for that. Other fighters were just better.
A two or three round burst out of that 37mm canon hits your wing or rudder and you'd be through for good. Those things were used primarily for ground attack, but when air kills did occur that canon could be devastating. You could stick a two liter drink bottle in the holes it could make in an enemy aircraft.
God forbid you ever get hit with anything and anything as big as 37mm canon!
The only thing good about getting shot at with 30mm amo or bigger is the fact that if they miss you and come close, you can hear them fly pass you. So do the right thing and get to hell out of the way!
The P40 used well e.g. by 325th FG (Checker Tail Clans) in the MTO, and also it was the most successful "fighter" in the CBI. The P51A just cut a poor figure in CBI. Ki43s Oscars massacred them quiet well. P40 was a capable aircraft, - as well the P39 to mention it here at least - just had to know how to use it. P40 was a pleasant plane to fly, the Merlin Mustang wasnt. Until it used up all the fuel from the fuselage tank, it was a very unruly plane. Tiring to fly deep into enemy territory.
While I agree with your comments for the most part, I take exception with others. The P-51A had advanced aerodynamics (laminar flow wing) the Mustang Mk I was about 30 mph faster than contemporary P-40s & P-39s using the same engine (the V-1710-39), all 3 were very manuverable, although none could turn with contemporary Nip a/c, performance for all 3 fell off drastically above 15,000 feet. The P-51(B), with the Merlin engine optimized for high altitude performance was a world beater.
The P-51(D) weighed almost a ton more than the "B" but performed as well as the "B" but equipped w/6 .50 cal machine guns, & an 85 gal. fuselage tank to extend the "D"s range to Berlin & past. There were teething problems to be sure, and & maneuver was restricted until the fuselage tank was down to 25 to 30 gallons; but the "D" could fly to Berlin and fly higher, faster and turn tighter than contemporary German a/c encountered in strength on average.
The "D"s thicker wings accomodated 6 upright .50 cal. machine guns; the thicker wing permitted enlarged wing tanks, plus 85 U.S. gallon fuesage tank. More fuel, heavier a/c. Also, the "D" was equipped w/a teardrop canopy for better visibility, a tail "fillet" was added to compensate for the decrease in stability resulting from the cut down fuselage. Some "B"s & "C"s were fitted with the bulging "Malcolm" hood invented by a Brit, some had the tank, not all.The tank was standard on the "D".
But the Allison Mustang was bad for fighter, P40 wasnt. They had very different flight characteristics. And yes, P40 just simply can do the mud-digging, too. Spitfires also were used for ground attack role, and Beaufighers were used as fighters, too, out of their original role. But they did it quite well. For example SDB Dauntless could turn the table on the Zero in hands of a good pilot. Allison Mustang for hit and run, P40 couldnt run, so it must fight. And did it very well!
Mustangs stregth: laminar flow wings (that was the concept, of course it had) so fast in horizontal flight, designed extremely short time (117days), reached Berlin. Nothing else. Jamming guns, bad handling, poor maneuvering, bad system protection. And although with Allison it was pleasant to fly, but why?? It was so bad fighter, that it was converted to ground attack plane. It wasn't better than the Hurrican, Spitfire or P-40 in that role. With Merlin it lost its pleasant flight characteristics.
Hang on... so you're saying the Allison-engined P-51 was such a bad fighter, it was relegated to ground attack. That wouldn't apply to the P-40, of course!
@Cuccos19: Saburo Sakai said the P-51D was the best fighter he ever flew. His opinion was that the most important characteristics in a fighter were visibility, range and loiter time. The Mustang beat everything in these areas.
Every line from the narrator totally contradicts everything we now know about how the British felt about the P-39!
This whole film reminds me of a useless gift given to you by your grandmother from out of town who you only see once a year. They show it to the Americans to make us think they love our 'gift', and as soon as we leave they stuff it right back in the closet (Russia) LOL
The P51 and P47 got such a big glory, what they didn't deserve. And the P38 Lightning always came out as a bad airplane, or maybe medicore. It's simply not true, again. It was also a great fighter, better than the P51 and P47 together, although it was expensive. And the pigheads didnt give the permission to retool the production line for the ever best Lightning which was soaring the skies, the P-38K.
you´re soo right! No P47 or P51 could carry so many gns rockets and bombs! and still be a har target for every enemy. The P38 is just a very good plane.
To mate a Merlin engine with the P-39 would take a bit of engineering and reworking. Mostly because of that mid-engine layout. Nice place to put the engine, though; right over the main wing spar. Chuck Yeager flew the P-39 in training and said he would have gladly gone to war in it.
I know there was talk about putting two Merlins in a P-38. The thrust line was different so the rework was extensive. I also understand the broad paddle blade propellers were used. Talk about sweet!
I don't see the advantage. The P-38 Allison was turbocharged, so the Merlin's quality supercharger was not needed. Other than that, the Allison was really a better engine. It was more reliable, and because of its internal oil passages, far more combat durable. Plus it was easier to maintain and rebuild. British made Merlins weren't even 100% parts interchangeable.
@AngrySemite. If the Allison was superior to the Merlin why did the the USAAF abandon the use of the Allison in the Mustang in favor of the Packard built Merlin and also in the Curtis Kittyhawk.
@binaway: Well the reason they went with the Merlin on the Mustang was Allison didn't make a decent supercharger. That was a result of pre-war Army procurement policy, which emphasized turbocharging. I don't know why they put it in later P-40s, since they castrated the blower, but I suspect it was availability. Packard Merlins we used were better than RR ones, but still inferior to Allisons in basic engineering. Ever notice that post-war air racing is almost all Allison and not much Merlin?
@AngrySemite OK great in a boat at ground level. But in a airplane at 20,000ft get a good AIRPLNE engine, ie the Merlin. Even the Spanish put the Merlin in the last bf109's they built after the war. The could have chosen the Allison but as the USAAF did with the P41 they chose the Merlin.
The turbocharged Allison did everything the merlin did but with far better basic strength and reliability (other than the SC itself early on). My memory is the Spanish put HIspanos in their 109s. The Merlin was well outdated by the end of the war. External oil lines? Please. And high altitude performance is not the definition of a plane motor. The Merlins int he P40 had lousy high altitude performance. And in the East, thee was no HA fighting. The Ally was far better for Russian use.
@AngrySemite . Outdated yes.This is why the last Spitfires had Rolls Royce Griffin engines. The Spanish bf109's built in 1954 certainly did have Merlin's and a Spitfire type prop. Ironic as the prototype bf109 had a Rolls Royce Kestrel. If you wanted a fighter to protect the B17's against the Luftwaffe then an Allison engined P41 was not the answer. It had to be the Merlin. The North American company didn't go to the trouble of installing a new engine for the USAAF for nothing.
@binaway Alli engined P-38s easily did the same job. The reasons we withdrew them were early turbocharger reliability problems (fixed with a larger intercooler) and pilot discomfort in cold weather. No warm motor in front of the cockpit. TC Allison HA performance was easily as good as dual stage Merlin. Single stage merlins (P40)were no better HA than SC Allis. The Alli was a more modern design, more room to grow for racing and much tougher. As any mechanic to compare the designs.
I really don't know how to be any clearer. I am talking about the basic bottom and top end design. The Merlin was an old fashioned design. The Allison was very modern, modular , robust and simple by comparison. it weighed less too. The Merlin just had an awesome supercharger which made it perform well at HA. Of course, it really needed American 100 octane avgas to do so. If Allison had developed a similar supercharger the Alli would have performed similarly. But the Army stopped them.
@binaway:Honestly, the Allison was a much better engine for this role, as it was much tougher and more reliable. Again, I can only guess that they put the Merlin in the P-40 because Packard did such an amazing job producing them, and at much higher quality than the RR Merlins. The Allison engines P-38 was a far more appropriate bomber escort than any P-40, but it had bugs that made it a poor fit in the European theatre until late int he war, by which time the P-51 was dominant in that role.
@binaway:@binaway: The Merlin engined P40 was not even close to capable of escorting B17s. It flew the same missions as Allison engined models. All below 20, 000 feet, because the the version of the Merlin in the P40 did not have the dual speed dual stage supercharger of the Mustang version. I forget the exact model numbers and don't feel like looking them up. P40s also did not have the range to fly such missions. By the time the Merlin P40s came out the plane was exclusively a fighter-bomber.
LOL, You make up names and think this makes a good argument. It appears pidar means homosexual. I'm sure you picked this word because you hear it directed at you so often. Spouting your BS does disservice to the real Russian aces, but I guess you don't care. By the way, my wife is Russian so when I get home I'll get the exact translation so I can laugh more at your stupidity.
No Russian ace had 200 kills PERIOD unless you are talking about ground vehicles (which you did not say, and even then I still doubt it). Ivan Kozhedub had 62 kills and he was the top allied ace. On top of that the P39 was used more as a fighter than a ground attack plane. The Russians had the IL2 for that. This can all be looked up online as well as in several books. But feel free to continue looking stupid.
Apparently the main complaint they had about the spitfire was the lack of momentum and speed during a dive. Apparently russian fighters were better for this?
Most likely.. :) I've more or less finished painting the P-39 N Airacobra, whereas the P-39 400 / Mk.I, by nature of it's RAF camo, will need a coat of dark green. I may get that done tonight! Thinned Revell dries almost as quick as acrylics! I prefer Humbrol, but certain Revell enamels work well for me, I have discovered.. :) Especially since I started thinning them.. :)
Some models are like a really good book, you just can't put them down!! I'm just waiting for something to go horribly wrong now..
The RAF 'Cobra' has been in the planning for ages, but I'm glad I waited, as I could make it a twin-build now, and show the options possible with the Academy kit.. :)
The major shortcoming with the aircraft was its lack of a supercharger, which hampered its performance above 10,000 ft. Most of the air battles occurred at altitudes of around 20,000 ft.
The Russians used it as a very effective GROUND ATTACKER.. No need to go up high!! :) There is always a proper use for any aircraft, just look at what the Finns did with the Brewster Buffalo.. But yes, the Airacobra had benefitted greatly from a supercharger, the design in itself was otherwise quite good.. :0)
Many of Russia's top aces used P-39s, and they did OK in air to air combat.
Russian front air combat tended to be at lower altitude, where the P-39 could, as the video summary says, hang with and beat the Me-109. Also, it did have some nice fire power.
They were also used at Gualdalcanal, a mix of US Army P-39s and ones built for but rejected by the RAF, which were pressed into US service. The Marines and Navy complimented them with F4F Wildcats.
The P40 did heck a good job in every theatre of the WWII. Maybe its climb rate was poor, but anyway it was great aircraft. The history proves it. Although, I cannot understand the P51 Mustang, even not the Merlin powered ones. I simply hate them.
Ok, the aerocobra had no supercharger and fiarly short range. As such it couldn't be used to escort high altitude bombers or intercept higha alititude aircraft. It was much better at low altitude and often out preformed other aircraft at those altitudes but its 37mm cannon wasn't as useful against fighters. Its best job was in the russian theater where it battled at low altitudes vs attack aircraft. Mustangs were high alltidute long range escort fighters, but thats about it.
What don't you understand? The P-51 was simply a better fighter. A lot of brave pilots died, or had their faces burned off, because Curtiss (for reasons which have never been made clear) were allowed to keep churning out this clunker when they should have been building P-47s under licence.
The US didn't ship the M80 shells to the USSR though. Look it up. Also, Dimitry Loza's study of Sthe P39 in Soviet use makes it quite clear the primary role of the Airacobra was air superiority.
It wasn't used as tank buster by the USSR - that is a myth. The 20mm or 37mm cannon would have been useless against tanks - they both fired HE not AP. Russia found the P39 useful as an air superiority fighter because the typically lower altitudes at which combat occurred on the eastern front meant the P39's lack of altitude performance was not a significant handicap.
Actually, the p-39/p400 was used as a tank buster by the Russians with great success. (among other duties) The 37mm M-4 cannon did shoot an AP shell (M-80). They were only effective against the thin top armor because the M-80 was a mono-block (solid) round, and if memory serves could penetrate about an inch of armor. The round had a very slow muzzle velocity and very limited range.
Your welcome Bloke...Next time make your own shit. And Your welcome for the help Monkey. Thanks for holding back info gained from "Ultra" so we would enter the war sooner. And great job giving the Russians the engines to put in there Migs for us to fight against there Mr Clueless.
Beggars can't be choser's and unfortunately thats what the fortunes of war made us,the Town 'class' destroyers weren't ideal but they were better than nothing,and as to aircraft some were good Martlets,Marylands and Havoc's just as some were indiffernt we weren't really in a position to quibble about it .
True, but I was just pointing out for all the Yanks saying they sent us airplanes and ships is a lie of the first degree -they sent us old sht -by the way I know for a fact Aircobra were terrible to fly and when the gun was fired from the centre of the proppellor the whole plane shook and was uncomfortable from someone I know who actually "flew" one. Many of the Town class destroyers barely got across the Atlantic as they were so full of holes-that is also a fact. But as you say,we were begging
Fuck you! Our airforce was less than one third the size of the RAF in 1939. Do you think its was easy to convert all of our industries to support the war? We not only had to supply you with weapons but we had to supply the Australians and Soviets too. I admit the P-39 was a pretty shitty aircraft but its not like we could just make the P-51 magically appear in 1941. You should be thankful. If not for us there would be a lot of newly potted trees in Europe aswellas massive amounts of dead people.
Just remember if it wasn't for Britain you would have had nowhere to send your shitty planes and tubs! -if Britain had fallen before your US Cavalry had turned up( late as usual )-you would have been on your own with Japan from the West and V1 & V2 fired from Canada and Bermuda as well as the subs starving you by sinking the better ships you kept....
-Only joking (sort of)- I appreciate the USA help but do not take the arrogant "we won the war" -because you didn't -not alone anyway.
Hold on just a second, the Hurricane and Spitfire sucked too. They would rollover their engines would stop due to fuel starvation. The six .303 guns on the spitfire could not take down a He-111 even if he poured 800 rounds into the plane. You needed the 37mm gun of the airacobra. It could just about take the wing off of a He-111 and the british had nothing else during the summer of 1940 that was capable of doing that.
"the Hurricane and Spitfire sucked too" is a bit strong -in fact it depends when you talking about as the planes were improved as the War went on -The Hurricane actually won the Battle of Britain -purely because there were far more of them than the relatively new Spitfire -but, it was the reputation of the Spitfire that the Germans feared. The Spitfire armoury was inproved to cannon by the time Bof B took place and they made mincemeat of the German bombers and fighter guard. 1940 was a dark time
@Fartsurmonde The Hurricane won the BoB because it was a superior interceptor, thanks mainly to being a better gun platform. The Spit was better for air superiority. And that is how they RAF and PAF used them.
Look up isolatinism, it was an american thing through the 1930's We didn't want to become involve with one of your petty squables. America had little need for an air force in the 1930's because we have the atlantic between us and europe hence isolation because of the body of water. We didn't think you and the french would do such a shitty job defending yourselfs from the Germans and assumed you and france would be more than enough in handeling the germans.
Yes isolationism was perfected by certain Americans of Influence such as Joseph Kennedy (father of JFK) and the Lindberg family who were often on jaunts to see the Nazi parades. It was quite obvious in 1939 that what was coming about in Europe was no "petty squable" yet the US prefered to stay isolationist and sell shitty materials & outdated arms. Your comment about Britain & France against Germany is wholely inacurate-they were up against Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain and Soviet Russia THE AXIS
WE got involved with the war because our homeland was attacked(technically a territory but the ships were American) thus the illusion of being out of range of the fighting dissipated. It dissipated the second the IJN bombs detonated on the decks of our battleships and we new we had to fight. Its called self preservation but like I said earlier we never thought you and France would both get your asses handed too you so easily.
Yes, it took Japan actions to finally bring the USA to it's senses and shut the isolationists mouths so they were not listened anymore. The countries you scorn of Britain and France had paid a great price to slow the Axis war machine down waiting for help and it is frightening to think if it had not been for the miscalculation of the Japanese Empire to attack Pearl Harbour the Uncle Sam head may still be buried in the sand of isolationism -while it was taken over perhaps following a Nazi N bomb!
Still repairing a 20 year old 4 stacker which had been dersigned for 30+ knots and deep sea sailing into a workable escort, minelayer or minesweeper was much easier than building new ships. AT least during the "battle of Britain" GB had more pilots than planes.
@woodbinedrinker: The P-38 pilots, flying at great height, chose when and where they wanted to fight with disastrous results for our own men. The P-38 boded ill for the future and destroyed the morale of the Zero fighter pilot. -Saburo Sakai
On my first confrontation with the P-38, I was astonished to find an American aircraft that could outrun, outclimb, and outdive our Zero which we thought was the most superior fighter plane in the world. The Lightning's great speed, its sensational high altitude performance, and especially its ability to dive and climb much faster than the Zero presented insuperable problems for our fliers. -Saburo Sakai
The text describing DAC (dissimilar air combat) between the P39 and the Spitfire and BF109 is facinating. By all western accounts, the P39 was a complete lemon. I could never justify the 'on paper' performance of the P39 with these accounts. From what I infer, the P39 WAS a good aircraft when used within its design parameters. But with the excellent P51s, Spitfires, P47s and Typhoons, the P39 was not really needed in the West.
Actually, the "flying tank" was a moniker given to the IL-2 Sturmovik. The armor was the most ever applied to an aircraft at the time. It provided protection against 7.92mm German machine gun/rifle rounds and greatly increased the chances of surviving even heavier caliber rounds. Most of this armor was applied to the underside/engine/cockpit area.
Chuck Yeager didn't have to attempt to fly the P39 at higher altitudes against the Japanese air in combat. Read his autobiography about have to recover the P39 from a tumbling incident. Quite a number of pilots in the US and other countries were lost during training accidents.
its a good pane its ok in a dogfight but its real talent is in ground attacks, ask the russians...i think if they fitten a merlin in the cobra just like what they did with the mustang, that would solve the engine performance problems
I agree with you The P39 designed as a low level ground attack plane, basically to repel an invasion force on the West Coast. It was short range low altitude plane that could barely keep out of its own way in a dogfight and had a tendency to "tumble" ass over head.
never knew they had this plane? it looks really odd
musclerocker 1 month ago
Before you beat up on this plane too much the Allison engine killed a great many designs for the Americans. The P-40 was put to great use in the pacific theater but was also limited at altitude just like the P-39. The P-51 was nothing until they replaced the engine with a Merlin. To my knowledge only the P-38 really became a great plane but only because it had a turbo charger. All the other great American planes had air cooled engines like the Corsair and Hellcat.
77thewaz 2 months ago
The opening frame exposes one of the key reasons this aircraft was loved so by the men who flew it. The mid-engine design allows the cockpit to move forward, notice that the canopy is far enough forward that pilots can see down to the sides past the leading edge of the wing. This gave the P-39 an almost unique advantage. Look at the P-51's field of view, it's awful.
Marry this girl to a Rolls Royce 1650 series engine, a generously aspected blister canopy and she would have ended the war in 1943.
MilhausMN 2 months ago
Why be so angry about a deal made in panic 65 years ago?
aon10003 3 months ago 2
The Aircobra suited the russian lowlevel fighting but not the British highlevel fighting. You cant blame the aeroplane if the airforce select another tactic.
aon10003 3 months ago
@aon10003 considering bell knew the raf wanted an high altuitude fighter, why would they give them an aircraft designed for low level? Secondly the airacobra wasn't designed for low level it was just what the russians used it for, mainly around the cannon in the nose.
pramboy09 3 months ago
most of these went to rusia under th lend-lease agreament
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
Hey, if you're desperate, get an Airacobra! Every plane has its role. Even the original P-51 was an excellent ground attacker
luridplanet 4 months ago
Always liked the P-39 despite the company hyping it up wrongly - it is impressive to see at airshows, very agile...
I have 19 Airacobra drawings on my site.
WSClave 6 months ago
From what I heard, the Aircobras of the RAF were then sent to Russia
Giselle76502 7 months ago
I thought that a P400 was a p-40 with a Zero on it's tail.
SPAD58 8 months ago
@SPAD58 lol
nuk3m3vil 8 months ago
P39 was a high alt interceptor for bombers hence the 37MM cannon on it, But the way the cannon was set up it rarely hit anything
cut76 8 months ago
@cut76 No supercharger.
SPAD58 8 months ago
The British disliked the absence of a turbocharger or a supercharger, so altitude performance was poor when compared with indigenous types. In Soviet hands they had good use because it was a tactical weapon, making use of the massive 37mm cannon. Portugal had some, in the 40's, retained after landing in Lisbon, due to bad weather or mechanical failure or even because the pilots want to take a coffee...
vascoribeiro69 9 months ago
@vascoribeiro69
P 39's in Portugal were not used vastly because of mechanical failures and lack of mantaince, this because, when Portuguese ordered the cobra's, they weren't really instructed to maintain the plane...
Well, i read about ir a long time ago... I am in The 1st anti-aircraft regiment of Queluz
Hope it helped
Cheers
Antunez99 9 months ago
@Antunez99 Os Tugas não encomendaram P-39, eles aterraram na Portela em trânsito para o Norte de África, ficando internados e sendo incorporados na então arma de aeronaútica. Por isso não tinham material de substituição ou conhecimento técnico. Em igual circunstancias obtivemos um P-38.
vascoribeiro69 9 months ago
@Thedarkcountry tell me where you get the kill ratio was 10:1??
pramboy09 11 months ago
@Thedarkcountry tell me and then maybe you should look at how many 109's were shot down?
pramboy09 1 year ago
Soviets had lot's of these P-39's and P-51's in 1944 but they lost dogfights agaist Finns by 1:20 (especially against Bf-109 G). The skill level of Soviet pilots was remarkable low. One of their "flying ace" was found in embarrassing situation after the war when soviets found that almost all his kill claims against Finns were just fantasies. Soviet pilots shut down 17 finnish Bf-109's while finnish bf-109 pilots shut down 663 soviet aircraft (about 70% of them were fighters)
tranmere789 1 year ago
@tranmere789 can i ask where you got your information from?
pramboy09 1 year ago
The British bitching and bellyaching about the Aircobra is kind of funny, considering one of the top Russian Aces (Pakrischen (sp?)) with 60 kills against the same German aircraft, did it in an AIrCobra. I'm not saying the Aircobra was all that great - my grandpa thought it sucked too (he loved the P-38). I'm saying next to obsolete Russian bathtubs left over after the blitzkrieg, an AirCobra was a hot little plane in the right hands.
cobrachoppergirl 1 year ago
@cobrachoppergirl Correction to my post, the correct spelling of the Russian ace is "Aleksandr Pokryshkin" not Pakrischen. Youtube video on him "P-39 Airacobra - Aleksandr Pokryshkin"
cobrachoppergirl 1 year ago
@cobrachoppergirl If you're insinuating that British pilots weren't 'the right hands' for the Aircobra, I suggest you look at The Battle of Britain stats and think again. The RAF had every right to 'bitch and bellyache' about this aeroplane; they were virtually conned by Bell thanks to the misleading blurb the American manufacturer gave them. The spurious claims of a Soviet pilot have nothing to do with it.
TheMightyHartley 11 months ago 2
@TheMightyHartley No one should insult the British pilots, but the fact is that the Soviets did make great use of the P-39. Not because the Soviets were better pilots, because things like limited range and service ceiling were not big factor on the Eastern Front. Thus the Soviet pilots were able to use the plane to batter advantage.
77thewaz 2 months ago
@Thedarkcountry how can you say that yaks were wooden junks?, have you any idea how many shot down 109's and fw-190's??
pramboy09 1 year ago
The point to take here is that NO aircraft is perfect for ALL engagement situations. The world's aeronautical engineers have yet to produce an a/c that performs well in all envelopes (and those that came close were cost-prohibitive). Certain aircraft, owing to their design and powerplant, are ideal for certain environments.
penumbra155 1 year ago
The P-39, which first flew in ’38 and did not enjoy the benefit of a supercharged engine, was superb in a low-altitude, ground-attack or close air-support capacity, despite the fact that it was designed for high-altitude combat. The English, however, were in dire need of any a/c with high-altitude combat characteristics to counter German bomber escorts.
penumbra155 1 year ago
They were desperate and were willing to try anything. Unfortunately, the P-39's powerplant limitations preclude it's effective use in that role. However, the Russians found the P-39 perfectly suited for close-air support and ground attack roles, which was precisely the type of a/c they needed to counter German armor.
penumbra155 1 year ago
@penumbra155 - but they did not use it in this role, as they had no need to (they had the IL-2, remember). But it's a common mistake made when discussing VVS use of the P-400 and P-39 variants. Instead, they were used as fighters - and pretty successfully right up til the end of the war.
functio1 11 months ago
On the other hand, other aircraft, such as the P-51 which first flew in ’40 and enjoyed a vastly superior engine made possibly by two years of additional research and development (and funding) proved better suited for high-altitude combat.
penumbra155 1 year ago
However, these stellar aircraft had their limitations as well and were found to be wanting in the low-altitude support role because the a/c’s radiator was situated on the underside of the fuselage which made it vulnerable to ground-fire. So the moral of the story is, each aircraft has it’s own ideal envelop which may or may not meet the needs of the moment.
penumbra155 1 year ago
P-39 haters need to take a breath. The RAF's issue with the P-39/P-400 was high altitude performance over 15,000 feet.
*However* under 15,000 feet the RAF found out in tests that the P-39 could out-turn, out-roll and out-dive the Bf-109. It also had heavier firepower. Eastern Combat was mostly lower altitude so the Soviets could use the plane at its best, and loved it. The Soviets did a lot of fighting with it. They were literally made for each other. Different mission profile meant success.
DEP717 1 year ago
The Brits gave most of the P-39s/P-400s back to us (they were that disenchanted); they wound up for the most part being sent to the South Pacific where they served with the "Cactus Air Force" on Guadalcanal. As the Zero significantly outclassed the P-39, the USAAF pilots who flew them were indeed courageous. Some lived to transition to P-38s - and get some payback.
MrMike0553 1 year ago 2
@Thedarkcountry ok i see ur an real expert i give up because ur knowledge is to big lol
SuperTimebandit 1 year ago
@Thedarkcountry Russia had own good planes in 1944 and 45 and very good pilots,they fight for their country and they did it well.
But pls stop crying like fool,because anyone who know really about P 369 will tell u the same.
But russian pilots liked the plane,because u could see good in it,motor was well protected and even the canon worked well.
But to win war russia needed better planes,and they had good ones like yak 9.
And read books about german fighter aces in eastern front,like e.hartmann
SuperTimebandit 1 year ago
@Thedarkcountry i know so much about P 39 u liitle kid,even flew one lately.Better watch out who u talking at.
P 39 called iron Duck,us pilots sometimes destroyed own planes because they feared flying it,no match for the zero.The canon always failed.Only reason russian pilots liked it ,was that their planes at this time of war,were even worse.
The Hurrican in Battle of britain also was crap,but won the battle,because shoot down stukas and bombers.
Look at german fighter aces how much were shoot
SuperTimebandit 1 year ago
@SuperTimebandit Post War a Russian heard of US and UK pilots complaint about the cannon on the P-39..
it wasn't accurate enough and it would be better to delete it... The Russian, a leading P-39 ace, said he just flew as close as his could than fire 2 or 3 cannon rounds....couldn't miss, no problem....very effective single hit btw..
crpdst2003 1 year ago
Comment removed
tranmere789 1 year ago
@Thedarkcountry p 39 is still crap u can shoot a stuka down with even worse planes than p 39,in a fight with a Bf-g 109 or a focke wulf 190 this plane is useless.
So u should better stop post crap
SuperTimebandit 1 year ago
Notwithstanding the success of the P-39 on the Eastern Front (and, to a lesser degree, in the Pacific), it was criminal marketing misrepresenting its capabilities to the RAF. Just one "triumph" of US capitalism, which also contributed to Nazi industry.
PipeDD714 1 year ago
All I've heard about p39 is problems, but I still think they look like a sleek figher.
If the guns jammed: install a different gun!
If the engine sucked at altitude : try a different engine!
There really must have been shortages and tight schedules if no "plan b's" were ever tried on this plane.
Islanderh93 1 year ago 3
@Islanderh93 yeah but what about the carbon monoxide contamination in the cockpit? funny, over 80 years later with the grounded F-22 and F-35;s, America's most modern fighters, they are still having problems with problems about pilot safety. what does that tell you about the US military-industrial complex?
AccordGTR 5 months ago
I think most pilots that flew it, liked the P 39, realizing its limitations. I certainly like it, and I've only read about it.
kolbpilot 1 year ago
"Don't give me a P-39
with an engine that's mounted behind,
'cause it'll tumble & roll
and dig a BIG HOLE!
Don't give me a P-39" WWII P-39 pilots limerick as per Chuck Yeager
Do you think the Mighty P-51 Mustang would have had any better place in history without that marvelous Merlin engine inside instead of the original Allison? Both types were consigned to ground attack with the original Allison engine, but only the Mustang eventually got the ponies required and the rest is history!
bigisezhi 1 year ago
disguisting, take a gun and build an aeroform round it. At the risk of upsetting it is vulgar. I see it as a short form way of, well, I don't know - actually I do.
wildhobby 1 year ago
@wildhobby It worked pretty well, (aeroform built around cannon) for the Fairchild A-10 Warthog, the gun minus the Gatling style barrels was as big as a Volkswagen Bug and had to be many times as heavy. The Airacobra was considered sleek for her day, (pre- WWII for the USA), but a lack of a high altitude capable supercharger confined the type to ground support missions. Chuck Yeager cut his flying ARMY teeth in one and liked it's low altitude performance.
bigisezhi 1 year ago
music name?
Atesz222 1 year ago
Tri F-82 flew with twin Alisons.
akula621 1 year ago
Get help for your OCD
woodbinedrinker 1 year ago
Knock its performance if you will, but don't forget the P39 killed more Axis aircraft than any other U.S. fighter of the war, mostly due to the sheer VOLUME of work it saw in Russian hands. The Soviets only received about 4700 Airacobras, but they kept those planes flying sorties practically 24/7 for the whole duration of the war.
EATABAGOFHELL 1 year ago
Russians also flew that type,and its a piece of crap
SuperTimebandit 1 year ago
P-39 moron.
woodbinedrinker 1 year ago
@woodbinedrinker: You said, "Allison engines were always trouble."
I pointed out that it was wildly successful in the P-38. How does that make me a moron? Most versions of the v-1710 motor were incredibly tough and reliable. They just never put a decent blower on it. The engine itself was a brilliant design. Half the part count of a Merlin. Near total modularity. Tough bottom end. Great piece of engineering. Merlin looks primitive by comparison. Except the later Merlin blowers.
AngrySemite 1 year ago
@AngrySemite : the allison engines were good, but only if you flew at low alltitude.
keissaus 1 year ago
@keissaus: Ive said this about ten times, but the Allison was not inherently a low altitude engine. Only one version went to war with a high altitude compressor and the performance was outstanding. Superchargers are essentially an accessory, not a core part of the engine design. The RR 2stage/2speed blower on the Alli would have easily met Merlin HA performance.
AngrySemite 1 year ago 2
The door's a nice touch - I wonder if it made bailing out easier or tougher ...
Twirlyhead 1 year ago 2
Interesting info on the Airacobra. Lt Col Boyd Wagner became an "ace" in the plane & rated it higher than the P-40 & of course the Russians found it very much to their liking as several of their top scoring pilots flew the "Kobra" with much success against Bf-109s & FW-190s. I know the war over the Steppes was a tactical one fought mostly below 20K ft & that the P-39 was at its best @ low alt. Perhaps this explains much of the difference between the Russian & RAF/USAAC experience with the plane.
Fantasiosis1 1 year ago
Hey, i lhave read somewhere that the shaft from the engine to the propeller sometimes broke. And the splinters then were cutting the balls of the pilot. And because the cannon sometimes did not made more than three shots, the US gave the plane to the russians. Does anyone know more about that?
tierfuehrer2 2 years ago
The RAF knew that it was no Spitfire!
MrTommy1945 2 years ago 2
The P-39 was so awful that the RAF wanted nothing to do with it! A Spitfire it was not
MrTommy1945 2 years ago 2
I was walking around parked WW2 aircraft when I turned around at this air show and this plane caught my eye...I stared at it for a minute then recognizing and aero cobra! I was stunned!
erwintommy 2 years ago
The Aircobra was created according to usaaf specs fo a low to medium altitude fighter, the prototype was very agile and fast, it's when spec changed, like more armor, self sealing tanks, more guns that performance went downhill. also by the time it came out, other countries had created planes far more advanced than anything the US had at the time, the reason the lightning didn't have a supercharger originally, was the same reason the ac didn't, it wasn't expected to fight over 15k feet.
MegaWetwilly 2 years ago
P39 is an excellent aircraft in the hands of professionals. Amature pilots need not apply.
A503B201 2 years ago
it ws good till they changed the engine and screwed it all up.
xtiml 2 years ago
Yeah, the army air force decided they should delete the supercharger for streamlining. And all of a sudden you have a plane with good performance only at low altitude :(
GerbilEssences 2 years ago
@GerbilEssences They deleted the turbocharger not the supercharger.
BudweiserDiary 2 years ago
"Don't give me a P-39
With an engine that's mounted behind,
It'll tumble and roll
And dig a big hole...
Don't give me a P-39."
modelleg 2 years ago
The Aircobra was not a great interceptor, it was meant to be a ground attack plane. That is why it had the 37mm cannon when most US planes only had .50 cals
jakefree25 2 years ago
@jakefree25 The P39 was not designed for ground attack. It was designed for aerial combat, but the USAAF ordered the turbo-superchager be removed. This effectively gutted it's performance at altitude. The Russians used them for what it was designed; air superiority over the battlefield. Russia's top ace, Aleksandr Pokryshkin, scored 45 of his 59 victories in the P-39 IIRC.
frequentfiler 2 years ago 2
@jakefree25 It was not designed to be a ground attack aircraft, it was the russians that turned it into one taking advantage of the cannon in the nose and machine guns above the nose and wings.
pramboy09 2 years ago
Man, that commentator is just hitting all the selling points, lol! Careful to avoid mentioning speed.
Zajuts149 2 years ago
I tell you it never ceases to amaze me just how COOL American fighter aircraft looked wearing RAF camoflage and markings!
mrcraig41 2 years ago 3
To a layman the P-39C looks great, sleek, small, great gun location, and easy to bail out of. A cross between a Yak and a P-51. What was wrong with it? Thanks!
12thgenord 2 years ago
too slow, no altitude, not that maneuverable, reliability problems. Ground attack role was great and the Sovs used a bunch of them for that. Other fighters were just better.
MadDogDucati 2 years ago
The Russians got a lot of Lend-Lease P-39s too.
DonMeaker 2 years ago 2
A two or three round burst out of that 37mm canon hits your wing or rudder and you'd be through for good. Those things were used primarily for ground attack, but when air kills did occur that canon could be devastating. You could stick a two liter drink bottle in the holes it could make in an enemy aircraft.
Lex5576 2 years ago 2
@Lex5576
God forbid you ever get hit with anything and anything as big as 37mm canon!
The only thing good about getting shot at with 30mm amo or bigger is the fact that if they miss you and come close, you can hear them fly pass you. So do the right thing and get to hell out of the way!
hetmanbasza 1 year ago
fine.
I think, this type (midplaced engine) plane looks very smart.
BesshosenEnsenLife 2 years ago
The P40 used well e.g. by 325th FG (Checker Tail Clans) in the MTO, and also it was the most successful "fighter" in the CBI. The P51A just cut a poor figure in CBI. Ki43s Oscars massacred them quiet well. P40 was a capable aircraft, - as well the P39 to mention it here at least - just had to know how to use it. P40 was a pleasant plane to fly, the Merlin Mustang wasnt. Until it used up all the fuel from the fuselage tank, it was a very unruly plane. Tiring to fly deep into enemy territory.
Cuccos19 2 years ago
While I agree with your comments for the most part, I take exception with others. The P-51A had advanced aerodynamics (laminar flow wing) the Mustang Mk I was about 30 mph faster than contemporary P-40s & P-39s using the same engine (the V-1710-39), all 3 were very manuverable, although none could turn with contemporary Nip a/c, performance for all 3 fell off drastically above 15,000 feet. The P-51(B), with the Merlin engine optimized for high altitude performance was a world beater.
ReggiesReply 2 years ago
The P-51(D) weighed almost a ton more than the "B" but performed as well as the "B" but equipped w/6 .50 cal machine guns, & an 85 gal. fuselage tank to extend the "D"s range to Berlin & past. There were teething problems to be sure, and & maneuver was restricted until the fuselage tank was down to 25 to 30 gallons; but the "D" could fly to Berlin and fly higher, faster and turn tighter than contemporary German a/c encountered in strength on average.
ReggiesReply 2 years ago
@ReggiesReply The 85 gal fuse tank was 1st fitted to the B and C models...
frequentfiler 2 years ago
The "D"s thicker wings accomodated 6 upright .50 cal. machine guns; the thicker wing permitted enlarged wing tanks, plus 85 U.S. gallon fuesage tank. More fuel, heavier a/c. Also, the "D" was equipped w/a teardrop canopy for better visibility, a tail "fillet" was added to compensate for the decrease in stability resulting from the cut down fuselage. Some "B"s & "C"s were fitted with the bulging "Malcolm" hood invented by a Brit, some had the tank, not all.The tank was standard on the "D".
ReggiesReply 2 years ago
The P-51(B), with the Merlin engine optimized for high altitude performance was a world beater.
ReggiesReply 2 years ago
But the Allison Mustang was bad for fighter, P40 wasnt. They had very different flight characteristics. And yes, P40 just simply can do the mud-digging, too. Spitfires also were used for ground attack role, and Beaufighers were used as fighters, too, out of their original role. But they did it quite well. For example SDB Dauntless could turn the table on the Zero in hands of a good pilot. Allison Mustang for hit and run, P40 couldnt run, so it must fight. And did it very well!
Cuccos19 2 years ago
P-51D Mustang was a great aircraft.
Leaphchausew 2 years ago
Mustangs stregth: laminar flow wings (that was the concept, of course it had) so fast in horizontal flight, designed extremely short time (117days), reached Berlin. Nothing else. Jamming guns, bad handling, poor maneuvering, bad system protection. And although with Allison it was pleasant to fly, but why?? It was so bad fighter, that it was converted to ground attack plane. It wasn't better than the Hurrican, Spitfire or P-40 in that role. With Merlin it lost its pleasant flight characteristics.
Cuccos19 2 years ago
Hang on... so you're saying the Allison-engined P-51 was such a bad fighter, it was relegated to ground attack. That wouldn't apply to the P-40, of course!
thisisnev 2 years ago
@Cuccos19: Saburo Sakai said the P-51D was the best fighter he ever flew. His opinion was that the most important characteristics in a fighter were visibility, range and loiter time. The Mustang beat everything in these areas.
AngrySemite 1 year ago
Just want to add that I like the P-39 and wish she could have had that turbo supercharger!
greenseaships 2 years ago
Every line from the narrator totally contradicts everything we now know about how the British felt about the P-39!
This whole film reminds me of a useless gift given to you by your grandmother from out of town who you only see once a year. They show it to the Americans to make us think they love our 'gift', and as soon as we leave they stuff it right back in the closet (Russia) LOL
greenseaships 2 years ago
As I know, it was refused by english pilots because it would be a suicide to fight against german's planes with this kind of poor performances...
SettimaLegione 2 years ago
The P51 and P47 got such a big glory, what they didn't deserve. And the P38 Lightning always came out as a bad airplane, or maybe medicore. It's simply not true, again. It was also a great fighter, better than the P51 and P47 together, although it was expensive. And the pigheads didnt give the permission to retool the production line for the ever best Lightning which was soaring the skies, the P-38K.
Cuccos19 2 years ago
you´re soo right! No P47 or P51 could carry so many gns rockets and bombs! and still be a har target for every enemy. The P38 is just a very good plane.
Buemmo 2 years ago
To mate a Merlin engine with the P-39 would take a bit of engineering and reworking. Mostly because of that mid-engine layout. Nice place to put the engine, though; right over the main wing spar. Chuck Yeager flew the P-39 in training and said he would have gladly gone to war in it.
I know there was talk about putting two Merlins in a P-38. The thrust line was different so the rework was extensive. I also understand the broad paddle blade propellers were used. Talk about sweet!
B17Boy 2 years ago
I don't see the advantage. The P-38 Allison was turbocharged, so the Merlin's quality supercharger was not needed. Other than that, the Allison was really a better engine. It was more reliable, and because of its internal oil passages, far more combat durable. Plus it was easier to maintain and rebuild. British made Merlins weren't even 100% parts interchangeable.
AngrySemite 2 years ago
@AngrySemite. If the Allison was superior to the Merlin why did the the USAAF abandon the use of the Allison in the Mustang in favor of the Packard built Merlin and also in the Curtis Kittyhawk.
binaway 1 year ago
@binaway: Well the reason they went with the Merlin on the Mustang was Allison didn't make a decent supercharger. That was a result of pre-war Army procurement policy, which emphasized turbocharging. I don't know why they put it in later P-40s, since they castrated the blower, but I suspect it was availability. Packard Merlins we used were better than RR ones, but still inferior to Allisons in basic engineering. Ever notice that post-war air racing is almost all Allison and not much Merlin?
AngrySemite 1 year ago
@AngrySemite OK great in a boat at ground level. But in a airplane at 20,000ft get a good AIRPLNE engine, ie the Merlin. Even the Spanish put the Merlin in the last bf109's they built after the war. The could have chosen the Allison but as the USAAF did with the P41 they chose the Merlin.
binaway 1 year ago
@binaway
The turbocharged Allison did everything the merlin did but with far better basic strength and reliability (other than the SC itself early on). My memory is the Spanish put HIspanos in their 109s. The Merlin was well outdated by the end of the war. External oil lines? Please. And high altitude performance is not the definition of a plane motor. The Merlins int he P40 had lousy high altitude performance. And in the East, thee was no HA fighting. The Ally was far better for Russian use.
AngrySemite 1 year ago
@AngrySemite . Outdated yes.This is why the last Spitfires had Rolls Royce Griffin engines. The Spanish bf109's built in 1954 certainly did have Merlin's and a Spitfire type prop. Ironic as the prototype bf109 had a Rolls Royce Kestrel. If you wanted a fighter to protect the B17's against the Luftwaffe then an Allison engined P41 was not the answer. It had to be the Merlin. The North American company didn't go to the trouble of installing a new engine for the USAAF for nothing.
binaway 1 year ago
@binaway Alli engined P-38s easily did the same job. The reasons we withdrew them were early turbocharger reliability problems (fixed with a larger intercooler) and pilot discomfort in cold weather. No warm motor in front of the cockpit. TC Allison HA performance was easily as good as dual stage Merlin. Single stage merlins (P40)were no better HA than SC Allis. The Alli was a more modern design, more room to grow for racing and much tougher. As any mechanic to compare the designs.
AngrySemite 1 year ago
@binaway
I really don't know how to be any clearer. I am talking about the basic bottom and top end design. The Merlin was an old fashioned design. The Allison was very modern, modular , robust and simple by comparison. it weighed less too. The Merlin just had an awesome supercharger which made it perform well at HA. Of course, it really needed American 100 octane avgas to do so. If Allison had developed a similar supercharger the Alli would have performed similarly. But the Army stopped them.
AngrySemite 1 year ago
@binaway:Honestly, the Allison was a much better engine for this role, as it was much tougher and more reliable. Again, I can only guess that they put the Merlin in the P-40 because Packard did such an amazing job producing them, and at much higher quality than the RR Merlins. The Allison engines P-38 was a far more appropriate bomber escort than any P-40, but it had bugs that made it a poor fit in the European theatre until late int he war, by which time the P-51 was dominant in that role.
AngrySemite 1 year ago
@binaway:@binaway: The Merlin engined P40 was not even close to capable of escorting B17s. It flew the same missions as Allison engined models. All below 20, 000 feet, because the the version of the Merlin in the P40 did not have the dual speed dual stage supercharger of the Mustang version. I forget the exact model numbers and don't feel like looking them up. P40s also did not have the range to fly such missions. By the time the Merlin P40s came out the plane was exclusively a fighter-bomber.
AngrySemite 1 year ago
nice plane its coool to and very unique huh speling
Dominykas14 2 years ago
what if you mated a RR Merlin on this would it improve its performance?
emforty2 2 years ago
LOL, You make up names and think this makes a good argument. It appears pidar means homosexual. I'm sure you picked this word because you hear it directed at you so often. Spouting your BS does disservice to the real Russian aces, but I guess you don't care. By the way, my wife is Russian so when I get home I'll get the exact translation so I can laugh more at your stupidity.
jabberwock11 2 years ago
No Russian ace had 200 kills PERIOD unless you are talking about ground vehicles (which you did not say, and even then I still doubt it). Ivan Kozhedub had 62 kills and he was the top allied ace. On top of that the P39 was used more as a fighter than a ground attack plane. The Russians had the IL2 for that. This can all be looked up online as well as in several books. But feel free to continue looking stupid.
jabberwock11 2 years ago
As far as I know, no Russian ace had anywhere near 200 kills total, much less in a P-39.
jabberwock11 2 years ago
Hear, hear.. :) The Russians also preferred the Hurricane to the Spitfire.. they knew a REAL aircraft when they saw one... :)
BasicModelling 2 years ago
Apparently the main complaint they had about the spitfire was the lack of momentum and speed during a dive. Apparently russian fighters were better for this?
GerbilEssences 2 years ago
Most likely.. :) I've more or less finished painting the P-39 N Airacobra, whereas the P-39 400 / Mk.I, by nature of it's RAF camo, will need a coat of dark green. I may get that done tonight! Thinned Revell dries almost as quick as acrylics! I prefer Humbrol, but certain Revell enamels work well for me, I have discovered.. :) Especially since I started thinning them.. :)
BasicModelling 2 years ago
I had to spend 20 minutes this morning looking for a tin, any tin, of Humbrol 155 Olive Drab! I found one in the end, but guess I better stock up.
BasicModelling 2 years ago
Sounds like you are really pressing on! I might well spray some of that paint on the PZL11 when it's done. Can't wait to see the RAF cobra.
GerbilEssences 2 years ago
Some models are like a really good book, you just can't put them down!! I'm just waiting for something to go horribly wrong now..
The RAF 'Cobra' has been in the planning for ages, but I'm glad I waited, as I could make it a twin-build now, and show the options possible with the Academy kit.. :)
BasicModelling 2 years ago
RAF wasn't pleased with the Airacobra at all.. :) But they served well with the Russians.. :)
BasicModelling 2 years ago
The major shortcoming with the aircraft was its lack of a supercharger, which hampered its performance above 10,000 ft. Most of the air battles occurred at altitudes of around 20,000 ft.
Also needed a larger empennage
ChgoSTrider 2 years ago
The Russians used it as a very effective GROUND ATTACKER.. No need to go up high!! :) There is always a proper use for any aircraft, just look at what the Finns did with the Brewster Buffalo.. But yes, the Airacobra had benefitted greatly from a supercharger, the design in itself was otherwise quite good.. :0)
BasicModelling 2 years ago
Many of Russia's top aces used P-39s, and they did OK in air to air combat.
Russian front air combat tended to be at lower altitude, where the P-39 could, as the video summary says, hang with and beat the Me-109. Also, it did have some nice fire power.
They were also used at Gualdalcanal, a mix of US Army P-39s and ones built for but rejected by the RAF, which were pressed into US service. The Marines and Navy complimented them with F4F Wildcats.
DEP717 2 years ago
Yes, like I said.. The Russians had no need to go up high.. :)
BasicModelling 2 years ago
What on earth is an empennage? I hear that so often.
GerbilEssences 2 years ago
It is the tail assembly: The vertical stabilizer, rudder, horizontal stabilizer, elevators and trib tabs
ChgoSTrider 2 years ago
@GerbilEssences the bit where you sit
chitlika 2 years ago
I read the pilots of the time had a song they used to sing.
"Don't give me a p-39,
with an engine mounted behind,
it'll tumble and roll,
and dig a big hole,
don't give me a p-39."
EDWARDTAY55 2 years ago
I don´t know why the P40 got so famous and the P39 didn´t, the P39 has a much better design, heavier guns and better landing gears.
Buemmo 2 years ago
The P40 did heck a good job in every theatre of the WWII. Maybe its climb rate was poor, but anyway it was great aircraft. The history proves it. Although, I cannot understand the P51 Mustang, even not the Merlin powered ones. I simply hate them.
Cuccos19 2 years ago
Ok, the aerocobra had no supercharger and fiarly short range. As such it couldn't be used to escort high altitude bombers or intercept higha alititude aircraft. It was much better at low altitude and often out preformed other aircraft at those altitudes but its 37mm cannon wasn't as useful against fighters. Its best job was in the russian theater where it battled at low altitudes vs attack aircraft. Mustangs were high alltidute long range escort fighters, but thats about it.
kitsychan 2 years ago
What don't you understand? The P-51 was simply a better fighter. A lot of brave pilots died, or had their faces burned off, because Curtiss (for reasons which have never been made clear) were allowed to keep churning out this clunker when they should have been building P-47s under licence.
thisisnev 2 years ago
The US didn't ship the M80 shells to the USSR though. Look it up. Also, Dimitry Loza's study of Sthe P39 in Soviet use makes it quite clear the primary role of the Airacobra was air superiority.
parkbench71 2 years ago
It wasn't used as tank buster by the USSR - that is a myth. The 20mm or 37mm cannon would have been useless against tanks - they both fired HE not AP. Russia found the P39 useful as an air superiority fighter because the typically lower altitudes at which combat occurred on the eastern front meant the P39's lack of altitude performance was not a significant handicap.
parkbench71 2 years ago
Actually, the p-39/p400 was used as a tank buster by the Russians with great success. (among other duties) The 37mm M-4 cannon did shoot an AP shell (M-80). They were only effective against the thin top armor because the M-80 was a mono-block (solid) round, and if memory serves could penetrate about an inch of armor. The round had a very slow muzzle velocity and very limited range.
Eye4Lites 2 years ago
more sht provided expensively by the yanks -like the old tubs they called ships which were decommissioned tubs from WW1 barely sea-worthy.
Fartsurmonde 2 years ago
Your welcome Bloke...Next time make your own shit. And Your welcome for the help Monkey. Thanks for holding back info gained from "Ultra" so we would enter the war sooner. And great job giving the Russians the engines to put in there Migs for us to fight against there Mr Clueless.
turduckens4u 2 years ago
We didn't entice Japan to attack you anymore than we persuaded Hitler to declare war,so how exactly did we speed up the USA's entry into WW2? .
iroscoe 2 years ago
Beggars can't be choser's and unfortunately thats what the fortunes of war made us,the Town 'class' destroyers weren't ideal but they were better than nothing,and as to aircraft some were good Martlets,Marylands and Havoc's just as some were indiffernt we weren't really in a position to quibble about it .
iroscoe 2 years ago
True, but I was just pointing out for all the Yanks saying they sent us airplanes and ships is a lie of the first degree -they sent us old sht -by the way I know for a fact Aircobra were terrible to fly and when the gun was fired from the centre of the proppellor the whole plane shook and was uncomfortable from someone I know who actually "flew" one. Many of the Town class destroyers barely got across the Atlantic as they were so full of holes-that is also a fact. But as you say,we were begging
Fartsurmonde 2 years ago
Fuck you! Our airforce was less than one third the size of the RAF in 1939. Do you think its was easy to convert all of our industries to support the war? We not only had to supply you with weapons but we had to supply the Australians and Soviets too. I admit the P-39 was a pretty shitty aircraft but its not like we could just make the P-51 magically appear in 1941. You should be thankful. If not for us there would be a lot of newly potted trees in Europe aswellas massive amounts of dead people.
Iffy350 2 years ago
massive being a gross understatement of course I just ran out of room because of the character limit.
Iffy350 2 years ago
Just remember if it wasn't for Britain you would have had nowhere to send your shitty planes and tubs! -if Britain had fallen before your US Cavalry had turned up( late as usual )-you would have been on your own with Japan from the West and V1 & V2 fired from Canada and Bermuda as well as the subs starving you by sinking the better ships you kept....
-Only joking (sort of)- I appreciate the USA help but do not take the arrogant "we won the war" -because you didn't -not alone anyway.
Fartsurmonde 2 years ago
Hold on just a second, the Hurricane and Spitfire sucked too. They would rollover their engines would stop due to fuel starvation. The six .303 guns on the spitfire could not take down a He-111 even if he poured 800 rounds into the plane. You needed the 37mm gun of the airacobra. It could just about take the wing off of a He-111 and the british had nothing else during the summer of 1940 that was capable of doing that.
Iffy350 2 years ago
"the Hurricane and Spitfire sucked too" is a bit strong -in fact it depends when you talking about as the planes were improved as the War went on -The Hurricane actually won the Battle of Britain -purely because there were far more of them than the relatively new Spitfire -but, it was the reputation of the Spitfire that the Germans feared. The Spitfire armoury was inproved to cannon by the time Bof B took place and they made mincemeat of the German bombers and fighter guard. 1940 was a dark time
Fartsurmonde 2 years ago
@Fartsurmonde The Hurricane won the BoB because it was a superior interceptor, thanks mainly to being a better gun platform. The Spit was better for air superiority. And that is how they RAF and PAF used them.
AngrySemite 1 year ago
Look up isolatinism, it was an american thing through the 1930's We didn't want to become involve with one of your petty squables. America had little need for an air force in the 1930's because we have the atlantic between us and europe hence isolation because of the body of water. We didn't think you and the french would do such a shitty job defending yourselfs from the Germans and assumed you and france would be more than enough in handeling the germans.
Iffy350 2 years ago
Yes isolationism was perfected by certain Americans of Influence such as Joseph Kennedy (father of JFK) and the Lindberg family who were often on jaunts to see the Nazi parades. It was quite obvious in 1939 that what was coming about in Europe was no "petty squable" yet the US prefered to stay isolationist and sell shitty materials & outdated arms. Your comment about Britain & France against Germany is wholely inacurate-they were up against Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain and Soviet Russia THE AXIS
Fartsurmonde 2 years ago
WE got involved with the war because our homeland was attacked(technically a territory but the ships were American) thus the illusion of being out of range of the fighting dissipated. It dissipated the second the IJN bombs detonated on the decks of our battleships and we new we had to fight. Its called self preservation but like I said earlier we never thought you and France would both get your asses handed too you so easily.
Iffy350 2 years ago
Yes, it took Japan actions to finally bring the USA to it's senses and shut the isolationists mouths so they were not listened anymore. The countries you scorn of Britain and France had paid a great price to slow the Axis war machine down waiting for help and it is frightening to think if it had not been for the miscalculation of the Japanese Empire to attack Pearl Harbour the Uncle Sam head may still be buried in the sand of isolationism -while it was taken over perhaps following a Nazi N bomb!
Fartsurmonde 2 years ago
Still repairing a 20 year old 4 stacker which had been dersigned for 30+ knots and deep sea sailing into a workable escort, minelayer or minesweeper was much easier than building new ships. AT least during the "battle of Britain" GB had more pilots than planes.
scottduncan44 1 year ago
yes fortunately we did have more pilots than planes!
Fartsurmonde 1 year ago
@Fartsurmonde: I guess we shouldn't have burdened you with all that 100 octane avgas either.
AngrySemite 1 year ago
Allison engines were always trouble. Sabuo Sakai's memoirs talks about fighting these planes.
woodbinedrinker 2 years ago
@woodbinedrinker: The P-38 pilots, flying at great height, chose when and where they wanted to fight with disastrous results for our own men. The P-38 boded ill for the future and destroyed the morale of the Zero fighter pilot. -Saburo Sakai
AngrySemite 1 year ago
@woodbinedrinker :Not in the P-38,
On my first confrontation with the P-38, I was astonished to find an American aircraft that could outrun, outclimb, and outdive our Zero which we thought was the most superior fighter plane in the world. The Lightning's great speed, its sensational high altitude performance, and especially its ability to dive and climb much faster than the Zero presented insuperable problems for our fliers. -Saburo Sakai
AngrySemite 1 year ago
My grandad was a rigger with RAF 601 during the war and i'm bloody certain he's in one of these shots..
receeder91 2 years ago
Comment removed
receeder91 2 years ago
Comment removed
receeder91 2 years ago
The text describing DAC (dissimilar air combat) between the P39 and the Spitfire and BF109 is facinating. By all western accounts, the P39 was a complete lemon. I could never justify the 'on paper' performance of the P39 with these accounts. From what I infer, the P39 WAS a good aircraft when used within its design parameters. But with the excellent P51s, Spitfires, P47s and Typhoons, the P39 was not really needed in the West.
foxrecon19d 2 years ago
Great video. I like all the additional info posted on the right.
altratronic 2 years ago
The RAF liked the Airacobras so much that they couldn't pass all of them to the Russians fast enough.
trent8002003 3 years ago 2
if they had kept the supercharger you would had seen a better aircraft
pramboy74 3 years ago
Yes and Ivan loved the plane's tank busting abilities. They called it the flying tank. To each their own.
supressorgrid 2 years ago 2
Actually, the "flying tank" was a moniker given to the IL-2 Sturmovik. The armor was the most ever applied to an aircraft at the time. It provided protection against 7.92mm German machine gun/rifle rounds and greatly increased the chances of surviving even heavier caliber rounds. Most of this armor was applied to the underside/engine/cockpit area.
Eye4Lites 2 years ago
Chuck Yeager didn't have to attempt to fly the P39 at higher altitudes against the Japanese air in combat. Read his autobiography about have to recover the P39 from a tumbling incident. Quite a number of pilots in the US and other countries were lost during training accidents.
Renshen1957 3 years ago
its a good pane its ok in a dogfight but its real talent is in ground attacks, ask the russians...i think if they fitten a merlin in the cobra just like what they did with the mustang, that would solve the engine performance problems
phonix032 3 years ago
I agree with you The P39 designed as a low level ground attack plane, basically to repel an invasion force on the West Coast. It was short range low altitude plane that could barely keep out of its own way in a dogfight and had a tendency to "tumble" ass over head.
Renshen1957 3 years ago