Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

P40 and P39

Discussion in 'Aircraft' started by GunSlinger86, Apr 5, 2016.

  1. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    The fight between a P40 in the horizontal plane and an attacking Me109 in the vertical is not an equal contest if the 109 has an altitude advantage. The 109 is not forced into a series of HOs but has the option to time the manouvre to approach the P40 from the high 5-7 - the high or lo yoyo. In this scenario s defending P40 would be lucky and very well flown to attain a HO.

    If the 109 and P40 approach each other on equal terms the 109 has the option to climb away - and attack with an altitude advantage

    I don't think the energy tactics as described by Shaw were a "passing fad" They aren't that different to the advice given in wartime fightign notes by the AFDU -r even these notes by Finnish Colonel Wind http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html

    I agree that not everything can be explained in terms of mechanics. The advice to turn and face may be based on the based on the moral compnant of fighting power - psychological advantage of forcing the enemy to face someone who can shoot at them, even if the mechanics say its a tactic which should lose.
     
  2. Gromit801

    Gromit801 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    134
  3. Clean32

    Clean32 New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    ok ok only other used by the yank and poms, even i suffer from keyboard errors
     
  4. Clean32

    Clean32 New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. Clean32

    Clean32 New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    This report was made some time in 1944. There were two marks of Spitfire in the tests. The Mk IX, the main variant from mid 1942 and the Mk XIV introduced as the new RAF main high altitude fighter. The Me109G was introduced in mid 1942 and roughly comparable to the Spit Mk IX.
     
  7. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    P-39s weren't used in North Africa? They seemed to be fast or faster than the P40s, and held their ground against Zeros in lower altitudes.
     
  8. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Yes, they were flown by the 81st & 350th Fighter Groups and two squadrons of the 68th Reconnaissance Group. The Tuskegee Airmen also flew them for a brief period of time.

    The only real success the P-39 found was in the hands of the Soviet Union were it performed very well.
     
  9. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    In that essay posted about the air war from Operation Torch on, it says the US only used P40s and Wildcats. It doesn't mention P39s at all.
     
  10. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Didn't read it all, but by the gist of the title, it seems concerned with the actual invasion. The P-39s were reinforcements to Torch & were flown over after the invasion had succeeded. On the flights over several P-39s wound up in Portugal because of mechanical problems or weather.
    http://www.oocities.org/tavaresl.geo/airacobra.htm
     
  11. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    According to Chuckhawks.com The P-40 could out-roll and out-dive a Zero, and was faster, but less maneuverable.
     
    Sheldrake likes this.
  12. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    Later P-40 models also had excellent dive acceleration and dive speed, excellent high-speed maneuverability, good roll-rate, and could absorb punishment.
     
  13. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    From everything I read, for what the P-40s and P-39s were designed for, they excelled. They single-stage, single-speed supercharger gave it poorer high altitude performance, but at low and medium altitudes, as it was intended to be used or, they were good fighters, and held their own or outclassed their opponents at those altitudes.
     
  14. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    Was it lack of military funding or strategical vision that held down the early fighters? Even the P38 lacked a good high altitude supercharger.
     
  15. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    Does anyone know why the manufacturers didn't include a second stage supercharger for higher altitude when all the other European fighters had one? The P39 could hold its own and sometimes out perform the BF 109 and FW190 at low to medium altitudes, but once they got higher that was it, until later models made some improvements.
     
  16. Dave55

    Dave55 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,377
    Likes Received:
    194
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Cactus Air Force too. They liked using them for ground attack with, I think, 500 lb pounds, according to the book I read. That seems pretty heavy though. They wanted more P-39s and P-400s but none were available. The SOP was for them to leave the area if any fighters showed up. Can't remember where I read that but it might have been Guadalcanal Diary.
     
  17. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    I think there were problems making an effective supercharger for the Allison engine. They made one work for the P38, but the supercharger took up a lot of space. Nor was it as good at high altitudes as the P47, or the Merlin engines optimised for high altitude in the P51 and Spitfire.
     
  18. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    Yea, they removed it from the P-39 because it interfered aerodynamically with the design, so it must have been cumbersome.
     
  19. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    Were these two aircraft intended as interceptors or escort/dog-fighters?
     
  20. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    P-38 was designed from the start as an interceptor. I think the P-40 was more of a dog fighter design. I suspect the P-39 was as well but that's speculation.
     

Share This Page