P-39 Aircobra "Peashooter"

I just read an article on the P-39 and the author was claiming that the P-39 is very underrated. It seemed that it was designed as a fighter but then modified to be an attack aircraft. The equipment on the aircraft seemed good but just couldn't pull it off. At the time they needed a higher altitude attack plane for patrolling the bomber squadron but due to the short wings it's climb performance was extrmely low topping out at 368 mph at 13,800 feet. After we designed and started manufacturing on the P-39 they saw limited use all over the Pacific. By 1942 though the P-40 and P-38's took over the role coming up out of Australia. Altogether it's design wasn't fit for a fighter but did take precedents as an attack.

 

The drawback was not the wings but the lack of a supercharged engine that kept it at low altitude. The US Army did not think it was worth the extra cost to put in supercharging and thus got a inferior aircraft. The Russians got most of them and had some success with them.
The P-63 version had better engines but again the Russians got most of them.

 

I found a book on P-39 aces that looks interesting.
http://cgi.ebay.com/TERRIFIC-PHOTO-ARICHIVE-Of-P-39-ACES-Of-WORLD-WAR-II_W0QQitemZ280020219864QQcmdZViewItem

 

The altitude problems were related to removal of the supercharger from the Allison engine on recommendation of the NACA. This left the P-39 with a useful service altitude of about 15,000 feet which was totally inadequite for WW 2 fighter combat for the most part. Other than this problem, the P-39 had two design inferiorities to the P-40 that relegated it to second fiddle as a US fighter early in the war.
The first problem was it had a short range. Range is more important than many give credit to. It hamstrung the Me 109 offensively. It was a major strength of the Japanese A6M Zero. The P-40 had about 20 - 25% more than a P-39 making it more suitable for the Pacific and as an offensive fighter. Note how the US had 2 fighter groups in the Mediterrainian from late 1942 equipped with Spitfires. Other than stints as interceptors used defensively at Salerno and Anzio these groups largely sat out the war in reserve. It was also the problem for the Spitfire in the Pacific. Thus the P-40 was the dominant fighter early in the war.
The other problem for the P-39 vie the P-40 was the 39 had a mixed armament complicated by problems with the 37mm M 3 cannon jamming and misfiring. The P-40 with 6 .50 cal machineguns had superior firepower, particularly for fighter combat. The P-39 was often reduced to two .50 machineguns (the 37 being jammed) and 4 mostly useless .30 machineguns (usually refered to as "paint chippers").
The P-39 did soldier on in the Pacific and Mediterrainian until early 1944 and was used right up to the end of the war in secondary theaters like Iceland, Panama, the Caribbean, and as an advanced trainer. It was a maneuverable aircraft and by best descriptions of many pilots that flew it enjoyable to fly.

 

It seems that, despite the NACS's misconception about taking out the supercharger, nothing was done to correct the faults in this aircraft to make it a superior aircraft. Was it because the armament was much weaker and incorrectable or just wanting to develop more staught aircraft?

 

In 1943 I have P-40, P-38, P-47 & P-51 coming into service, why fiddle about with the P-39?

As Ta says, they developed the P-63 and NONE saw active service with the USAAF

 

Little knowledge isn't enough, in researching WWII there's just so much. I'd like to know as much as possible. The P-39 played some part in WWII so I'd like to fiddle with it. My question remains: Was it because the armament was much weaker and incorrectable or just wanting to develop more staught aircraft?

 

What is a staught aircrft??

The P-39Q simplified the armament to 1 x 37mm and 4 x .50cal, so this wasnt a problem.

Adding a supercharger could have added too much weight and needed more air ducting so it might not have been able to be fitted.

If they put a RR Merlin in the thing it might have been different!!

(Also, was the design, being from 1936-37, considered "obsolete" for improvement?)

 

The P-39 remained a relatively minor player in the USAAF because:

1. It lacked range for offensive operations in the theaters it was committed to (Mediterrainian and Pacific).

2. Because of 1, the P-40 got the Merlin (the F and L) instead of the 39.

3. There were also issues with the P-39 in terms of its flight characteristics. While most, if not all, of these were unsubstanciated it gave the plane bad press.

4. The mixed armament remained a problem until the Q model where it was standardized on 1 x 37mm and 4 .50 machineguns. The 37mm remained a problem for the aircraft throughout its service. In the Pacific many P-39s had their 37 replaced by a 20mm Hispano-Suiza cannon of British design. This was more reliable and perfectly deadly against Japanese aircraft.

5. It lacked high altitude performance (as did the P-40).

Bell straightened out most, if not all, of the P-39s shortcommings in their P-63. However, the P-63 reached production so late in the war that it was eclipsed by the equal or better P-47 and P-51. The USAAF saw no reason to introduce a third, new, fighter into the mix; particularly one that realized no significant performance advantages over what was already in service. Thus the P-63 was destined for Lend-Lease use only.

 

Early in the war the P-39, P-40, Wildcat, and Brewster Buffleo was all there was in the Pacific until the P-38, Hellcat and Corsair came along. Pilots knew the P-39 and P-40 and Brewster were dogmeat for Zeros so no one loved them. P-40's were used as advanced trainers and the P-39 was used in Alaska and given to the Russians in lead lease contracts. There may not have been much incentive for Bell to improve the aircraft if they had contracts to fill for the Russians and they may not have had the production capacity to build more or different aircraft. Bell was a much smaller company than Douglas or Grumman or Republic and North American.
Bell was also working on the US's first jet fighter the P-59, and may have thought it would be put in production, however it was a flop.

Anouther factor that may be just psycholigyical, (can't spell ! ) was the pilot sitting over the spinning shaft from the engine to the prop. I read pilots did not like endangering their family jewels. I don't know if the shaft ever came loose in one or not.

 

Actually, in the Pacific by the latest research such as Lundstrom's The First Team it has become apparent that the Zero was greatly over-rated in kill ratios. The US (and Allies) managed in the early years of the war to produce about a 1 to 1 kill ratio using the aforementioned fighters. The P-39 got few simply because much of the time it could not get in the fight. Offensively it often could not reach targets. Defensively it lacked altitude performance to often reach Japanese raids given short warning.
Compounding this was the cannon jamming problem. This often left a P-39 with effectively two .50 machineguns for armament. Many P-39 pilots thought so little of the .30 guns that they frequently had them removed to lighten the aircraft feeling their weight was just added useless load. This meant that even in cases where a P-39 could engage an enemy aircraft often it lacked sufficent armament and ammunition to shoot it down.
To recock the 37mm after it jammed a pilot had to reach down to the floor of the cockpit, grab the cocking lanyard, and then pull (often with both hands as it took alot of strength) the lanyard up and back about even with his ear! This was not a highly recommended proceedure to attempt during aerial combat obviously.

 

Let's not forget the P-63 D, which did outperform other US fighters & cost less than P-38. Mustang had range, therefore P-63 D not put into production. It also had 37 mm cannon which was state of the art & unlike 20 mm, could punch holes in Tigers.

 

I've a video with Chuck Yeager speaking of his training days in the P-39.
He said that compaired to the other "tracers" of the plethora of guns being fired, the 37mm (his words) "was like throwing a grapefruit."
I suppose it had quite a drop to it.
Not entirely a bad thing in ground attack, especially while attacking the top armor of tanks.
Even the Panther had only 1/2 inch over the engine.

 

Met an old guy in Michigan at an air museum that said the 39's 37 mm would kick so bad that one would have to re-aim after each shot. Now that P-63's 37 mm was a whole new gun.

 

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p63_7.html
Here's the end of the P-63 story.

Specification of Bell P-63E-1 Kingcobra:

Powerplant: One Allison V-1710-109 (E22) air cooled-engine rated at 1425 hp for take off Performance: Maximum speed was 410 mph at 25,000 feet, and an altitude of 25,000 feet could be reached in 7.6 minutes. Normal range was 725 miles, and maximum ferry range was 2150 miles. Weights: 7300 pounds empty, and normal and maximum loaded weights were 9400 pounds and 11,200 pounds respectively. Dimensions were wingspan 39 feet 2 inches, length 32 feet 8 inches, height 12 feet 9 inches, and wing area 255 square feet. Armament: The nose cannon was an M10 37-mm cannon with 58 rounds, but a 20-mm T31 cannon with 175 rounds could be alternatively installed. Two 0.50-inch machine guns in the nose cowling and two 0.50-inch machine guns in underwing pods.

Doesn't list topspeed, but P-63 D was 437, E had same powerplant, therefore one would assume it would be similiar.

 

thats a powerful plane both guns and engine

 

Notice max ferry range, 2150 miles!

 

Ferry range is with lots of drop tanks and no ordinance, combat range is what counts.

I was reading about the P-39 in my fighter book and it said 4000 P-39 M's were ordered as the P-76 but this order was cancelled because they wanted the use of the construction plant for the assembly of B-29 bombers.

The P-38D also had a nose mounted 37mm cannon but the P-38E went back to a 20mm cannon. I seem to remember Oldsmobile built the cannons but I don't know who invented them. Perhaps TAG knows.

 

I also wondered where you got the "peashooter" name ? The P-26 was called a Peashooter, I never heard of a P-39 being called that.

 

Easily found on the web...the XP-39
After the engineers at Wright field got done with streamlining, it became the "Iron Dog".
they lowered the canopy, replaced the 2-stage supercharger with a one, moved the inlets (from both sides of fusaloge to behind conopy), cropped 2 foot off wings, 1 foot off length, and moved its center of gravity farther back.
Some British pilots said that all you had to do was sneeze and it would spin, and refused to fly it.
Un-substanciated of course, but the allegation was was worse than the charge. Guilty until proven innocent, and rumors spread faster than truth.
Bell was forced to make these changes because they were near bankruptcy.
(pushed around by the guys with the money...eh?)
It still had design flaws which could have been corrected, (new rear stabilizer, laminar flow wings).
Not until the P-63 were these shortcommings repaired. Had the Army been attentive/learned, (un-fatheaded), the allies may have had the P-63 instead of the 39.
Such is politics.