The damn thing didn´t work right, so the AAC thought better a low altitude fighter that works than a high altitude fighter that doesn´t. Plus a critical altitude of ~12k feet was 'acceptable' in 1939. Turbochargers cost an arm and a leg, superchargers were comparatively cheap: Army Air Forces in World War II The Soviets got the N and Q versions of the P-39. Compared to the D's the AAC disliked so much the Soviet brids had more power, were faster, performed much better at higher altitudes(~20k feet) and were free of bugs.
I have to giggle everytime I hear the words aerial cannon and soviet pilot in the same sentence, over this one guy I saw describing some kills he got in the P-39N. He said he loved the big gun, they all did and not for shooting at ground targets it was for shooting at german planes at point blank range. He says his favourite thing that ever happened was a german fighter crossed right in front of him, and he shot with the big gun, thump, thump, thump and when the first round hit the entire a/c just desintegrated in front of him, he made big swinging motions with his arms and big wide eyes, grinning he says it just went voosh and it was just a cloud of smoke. I know it's not good to laugh at something involving a death, but the way he told it was pretty funny. Dunno about quoting sources, from what I've read around for the Yak-9T and LaGG-3T (fitted with NS-37 high velocity motorguns, where the Oldsmobile 37mm in the P-39 is low velocity and only good for soft targets), Soviet pilots annoyed TsAGI during the service evaluation phase with them because instead of testing the gun on ground targets, they kept using up all their ammunition trying to chase down german fighters with marksman shots from extreme range, close to a kilometre for the NS-37 and well over a kilometre for an NS-45. These are right up with the FlaK guns Germans were putting in tank busters. You know and I can really picture it, excited pilots being told to escort sturmoviks, then running off to dogfight Messers with a great big, really big gun.
One author suggests that Western historians often thought the Cobras were ground attack aircrafts because the Soviets tasked it with providing air cover, which was misunderstood to mean close air support; in reality, it meant force protection against opposing aircraft.
Quite true Triple C, Chris Bishop is a big editor of commercial aero warbird publications and he repeatedly states in his books from the 80s to now (most recent is a couple of years ago), about soviet pilots primarily tasked with ground attack in airacobras, which is utterly erroneous (the gun in it is designed to punch through duralumin, not steel), he even goes so far as to say the Soviet kill markings on airacobras are for panzer kills which is completely ridiculous. They did really well against Japanese ground targets because what Japan calls heavy armour, western europe calls a bit of deflection netting. The French had 90mm glacis armour in 1934, the Tiger was designed (I should say armour specs ratified) in 1938.
..reading The Do or Die Men ..page 206 states the P400 had 6 .30 MGs plus the cannon...now when I search for the P400, I get all kinds of different armament ...does any one know exactly what it carried? ..book states the P400s gave Edson's Raiders mucho sorties for the Tasimboko raid ...4 sorties in one day.....a lot of firepower there
There is a factual basis behind the dislike of USAAF pilots of the P39. According to the statistical analysis of aircraft losses in the Continental US, 245 P39 were lost for every 100,000 flying hours, compared to 127 for the P47 and 105 for the P51. It was twice as dangerous to learn to fly this aircraft. The stories of nasty handling characteristics may be true. British media published promotional material from Bell positioning the aircraft as a ground attack aircraft with the 37mm gun as a tank buster. It looked like a shrewd marketing move given Blitzkrieg, but was an utter fail with the RAF, who hated the idea of close air support. The P39's poor high altitude performance was the killer. 601 Squadron breifly trialed the aircraft and gave it the thumbs down.
I wonder if the position of the engine played a role in balance requiring more training/skill to fly safely.
Chuck Yeager almost, as he put it, "bought the farm" not far from where I live. They were on a training mission in P-39s over the Sweetwater Rocks. His engine burst into flames and he had to bail out. In the process his back was broken and he was knocked unconscious. Fortunately, a sheepherder found him and slung him over his horse and brought him in. So that would indicate that these planes had some bugs in them.Someday I hope to find the wreck of his airplane!
I read Yeager's autobiography book back in the 80's and he didn't have many kind words about the P-39 but he said years later he met some Russian pilots at a reunion who flew it and they praised it up and down..old Chuck simply kept quiet his opinions about it..I guess the later models were a dramatic improvement what he flew??
I think it had to do with Russian tactical doctrine and how well it fit into that, crew safety would always be a secondary issue.
They actually delivered about 2,400 of the P-63s, not close to 3,000. And the 2,400 number is the number that set out for Alaska, not the number of them that got to the Soviet Union. No use in overestimating the deliveries. Actual planes that got to and flew for the Soviet Union are something a bit over 2,200, the balance having been lost enroute or declared a write off when they emergency-landed enroute. The ones that got fixed along the way got delivered, mostly.
They aren't. The big problem in terms of loss was the tricycle landing gear. You needed better airfields to operate the P-39 from because of it. On grass and unimproved fields accidents were more common, particularly if you had inexperienced pilots. Most pilots you read commentary on actually liked flying the P-39. The Russians surely did. The biggest drawback to the P-39 for the US wasn't performance, it was range. The P-39 had the shortest range of any major US fighter. That meant it got into combat less often than any other fighter type. It couldn't carry more than one drop tank, and was simply all-to-often not able to get into the fight offensively. It couldn't be used as a bomber escort for example due to the short range. That relegated it in US service to being a defensive interceptor and ground attack plane, neither role it was particularly suited for. In New Guinea, the early warning systems gave too little warning time for the P-39's to take off and get to altitude. Their short range made standing CAP impractical. The result was in most cases the P-39 squadrons would take off on a warning and start a climb to altitude. The Japanese raid would arrive, bomb, and head home. The P-39's never got to a position where they could intercept. For ground attack it couldn't haul a useful load of ordinance, so it was reduced to strafing in most cases. Not very effective. This all accounts for the fact that there was just one P-39 ace during the war for the US. The Russians, using these planes for air superiority at short range had great success with them. That has to do mostly with the difference in how things were done in theater. Of note, the last P-39 squadrons in the PTO and MTO didn't get converted to better planes by the USAAF until well into 1944. The plane also soldiered on in many secondary and backwater theaters until the end of the war.
They aren't. The big problem in terms of loss was the tricycle landing gear. You needed better airfields to operate the P-39 from because of it. On grass and unimproved fields accidents were more common, particularly if you had inexperienced pilots. Most pilots you read commentary on actually liked flying the P-39. The Russians surely did. The biggest drawback to the P-39 for the US wasn't performance, it was range. The P-39 had the shortest range of any major US fighter. That meant it got into combat less often than any other fighter type. It couldn't carry more than one drop tank, and was simply all-to-often not able to get into the fight offensively. It couldn't be used as a bomber escort for example due to the short range. That relegated it in US service to being a defensive interceptor and ground attack plane, neither role it was particularly suited for. In New Guinea, the early warning systems gave too little warning time for the P-39's to take off and get to altitude. Their short range made standing CAP impractical. The result was in most cases the P-39 squadrons would take off on a warning and start a climb to altitude. The Japanese raid would arrive, bomb, and head home. The P-39's never got to a position where they could intercept. For ground attack it couldn't haul a useful load of ordinance, so it was reduced to strafing in most cases. Not very effective. This all accounts for the fact that there was just one P-39 ace during the war for the US. The Russians, using these planes for air superiority at short range had great success with them. That has to do mostly with the difference in how things were done in theater. Of note, the last P-39 squadrons in the PTO and MTO didn't get converted to better planes by the USAAF until well into 1944. The plane also soldiered on in many secondary and backwater theaters until the end of the war.
The P-400 had a 20mm Hispano cannon with a 60 round drum replacing the 37mm. It also had 2 x .50 Browning machineguns in the nose and 4 x .30 (replacing the British .303) machineguns in the wings (2 each). These were often removed to reduce weight and improve performance as pilots generally saw them as worthless in combat.
