I have always been fascinated with the P-39 ever since as kid I bought the old Revel and Airfix kits. The fact that under 10,000 ft and in the hands of an experienced pilot it could generally hold it's own against supposedly better aircraft and the fact that the later P-63 Kingcobra in terms of performance was rated as good as the P-51 and the P-47 suggests that the concept of the P-39 wasn't that bad.
On the eastern front, where most dogfights were at relatively low altitude, the P-39 really performed well. It was well liked by Soviet pilots and the cannon was able to basically one shot fighter sized targets. I feel it's a hugely underated plane in the West.
My mother and one of her brothers worked at the plant during WWII. They were outside the plant at shift change when one of the aircraft, up on a test flight, crashed into the building, killing several people. It was not reported on at the time, security reasons, but the aftermath was vivid in her memory forever after that, the smell of charred flesh. All that remains of the plant now is a plaque in the parking lot at Buffalo International Airport.
Вечная память всем кто сражался против нацизма. Вечная благодарность вашей маме и её брату от русских, Советских людей за вашу помощь народу СССР сражавшемуся насмерть против гитлеровцев. Не забудем.
i knew a australian fighter pilot who flew in battle of Britain and in the middle east,we used to talk regularly about different planes he flew i asked about the air cobra once he said"it was well armed but could be deadly trying to pull it out of a dive also would get into uncontrolled flat spin or just spin out of control some times without any reason that was uderstood at the time he said that a lot of very experienced pilots lost thier lives in it he didn't like it at all"and he flew many different fighter planes.
The relatively small wings worked against the weight of the plane with all its added armor, something the army neglected to take into consideration when rushing this into production. As a result, the plane tended to go into a snap roll in tight fast turns. A good pilot knew the limitations and used the trim controls to limit the flap movements to counter this, but this would be difficult to many pilots in combat.
Well said. The P-39 did not handle well at all in air combat manouvers according to test pilots in Material Command. CofG was also a factor as ammo from the cannon was used up.
It is notable that airplanes like the P 39 and the Brewster Buffalo were very unpopular with the american and british pilots and at the same time so beloved by the russian and finns. I think the answer is very simple; if you fought at low altitude, both machines were rugged and agile. If you had to fight at high altitude they were a real death trap. The pacific and the western european fronts saw a lot of high altitude combats, escorting strategic bombers, intercepting and whatnot, flying low made you vulnerable to deadly flak. While on the eastern front, most missions involved ground attack, strafing and frontline interception so it was a very different story. A lot of these considerations can be found on Adolf Galland's "Die ertzen und die letzen" which I recommend anyone interested in the subject to read. Greetings!
Something you've forgotten to take into account about the P-39 in the Pacific which IMV saw it unfairly criticised regardless of the USAAC's interference re the proposed turbo-supercharger and laminar wing in its design phase. During its particular period before being superseded, it was up against the truly spectacular A6M2 Model 21 & later Model 32 (Zeke) and Ki-43 (Oscar) with its butterfly flaps, two of the most agile handling aircraft of the era at any altitude. Even the legendary Spitfire was outclassed in a turning dual with either of those. And A6M2 performance was at its optimum at 15,000ft according to Saburo Sakai who said the only aircraft which really scared him (during that phase of the war) was the P-38 when it was introduced into theatre because of its superior high altitude performance. We know that the Brit P-400 contract was cancelled because of its poor ROC & higher altitude performance attributable to its single-stage single-speed supercharger. And of course, equally well known, the Soviets loved it and that it excelled in that theatre where much of the air to air and air to ground combat occurred well below 10,00ft where neither rubbish ROC nor lack of turbo-supercharging hampered it.
@@theblytonian3906 I agree with everything you wrote on your comment in general, thank you to comment my posting. And I have an honest question to you. I read Samurai, the biography book about Saburo Sakai and I can't quite recall him actually fighting P 38's. I remember him commenting about things he heard of the Corsair and "newer models of P 39's and p 40's", but I can´t find the passage you mentioned. (By the way, in the 1980's I had the privilege of shaking hands with him and also with Gregg "papy" Boyngton at an airshow of the confederate airforce in McAllen, Texas. So I'm really interested in the subject). As i remember, many of the P-400 were used at Guadalcanal in ground attack missions, yet I think it was the F4F's that did the interception and dogfighting with the legendary "Cactus airforce". Warm greetings and happy hollidays.
@@salvadorhurtado9988 Yes he fought P-38s. I'll have a look and see if I can find the passage over the next few days. As a retired professional pilot since who started flying aged 17 and a WWI & II aviation aficionado since before then I remember it particularly well as it surprised me. He also fought F6Fs much later. There's a legendary part in one of the chapters where he fought a running defensive battle against a hoard (15) of them trying their utmost to kill him in the vicinity of Iwo Jima (before the February '45 battle) where through a combination of determination, perseverance, skill and luck he managed to survive. Never had the opportunity to meet either of those legends. OTOH I've flown into Henderson and a stack of other famous Pacific airfields though. Evocative to feel the climate, sense the endless ocean and see the terrain over which they were fighting.
@@theblytonian3906 Thank you very much. I remember the passage you mention, and what impressed me the most when I read it was the claim (which I think is true) that in that particular encounter his plane came back without a single bullet hole. And he actually flew with a blind eye! (Because of his Guadalcanal wounds). It must be wonderful to have flown, as you did, over the Pacific Ocean. I can tell you remember it vividly. Happy new year to you and your's!
I like your videos. They are well put together, no matter the format. These videos provide people like me with quality information and entertainment for free, so you shouldn't have to apologize. Some people simply complain too much.
@@AllthingsWW2 Not just the lack of turbo, but also the short wingspan made it a low altitude specialist, but they had low altitude Spitfires with clipped wings too, so if one is going to compare Airacobra to Spitfire, it would be to the clipped wing, low altitude version.
No matter how much you learn about these fine warbirds, there is always something new to learn. Sometimes it’s all about one’s point of view. Other times something comes to light through a new source like a former pilot, although there are very few left after all these years. Thanks fri bringing everything you can!
@@alan6832 the difference in handling between the P-39 and Spitfire was like chalk and cheese. Wright Field test pilots concluded that the P-39 was an unstable gun platform for air combat manouvers. It had a host of aerodynamic and design issues making it unsuitable for the average pilot. The Spitfire on the other hand was a high performance, agile fighter that was very forgiving in combat.
This fighter had some of the best lines of all the ww2 fighters. A pleasure to look at. I read that one of the reasons Russian pilots loved this fighter was because the canon and two machine guns were centrally mounted. This made those guns much easier to aim since there was no convergence factor to consider while aiming.
When I was in 7th grade my teacher's father came in and spoke to the class. He flew P-39s and P-51s in the Pacific during WWII. He said the P-39 was his favorite plane to fly because nothing beat that 37mm cannon in the nose. I've come to realize, as long as you were at a lower altitude, it was an effective plane.
The P-39 has good performance. Now, this is going to sound strange but 80% if the time the Soviet missions were a combat sweep, not much going on. Plain old operational losses are what kills most people. That's a ground loop or a mechanical issue. The P-39 was not a great fighter but it was a good enough fighter. Also, the IL-2 were forbidden flying about 5,000 meters. That was the perfect altitude for the P-39. The P-39Q was a fair match for the FW-190 or the BF-109G. Why? Because post Kursk the P-39 was flown by good Soviet pilots and most of the good Fascist pilots were dead. A good pilot in a fair aircraft is better than a poor pilot in a good aircraft.
The P-39 required a skilled pilot to be handled in combat against the LW fighters. It was not for the average pilot being unstable in air combat manouvers close to the stall - roll-yaw coupling and poor recovery from the stall caused tumble and spin. It also had extremely light stick forces during high g manouvers. Bottom line: it killed many a pilot in training (in the US & USSR) and in combat unless they were well evolved stick and rudder combat pilots. REF: Wright Field test pilot reports & Soviet anecdotes.
@@bobsakamanos4469 good = skilled. average = mediocre. Ground loops from tail draggers took out a good number of BF-109 and Spitfires. I'm not saying the Iron Dog was a great aircraft. It was mediocre at best (and cheap, less than half the cost of a P-38). But the Soviets liked it for the radio, cockpit layout, a relief tube, cockpit visibility (nearly as good as a bubble canopy) and tricycle landing gear. If I were to change my original statement the Iron Dog has mediocre performance. If you talk to pilots they tend to like tricycle aircraft, there isn't stupid taxing mistakes. War has its lethal dumb side. Stupid mistakes kills a solid 5-7%. At least the Iron Dog had a lower than average ground accident rate. I admire the men who can make the machines work. The Soviets hated the P-47 but the USAAF in the Pacific made them work by using an Australian produced fuel tank coupled with "boom & zoom" tactics. The Soviets in 1944 were in the same situation as the USN aviators in 1944; the LW pilots and IJN aviators were a shadow of their past in experience.
@@Easy-Eight the P-39 had a high accident rate on approach / landing due to the flaws I've already mentioned. That was on top of the tumble and flat spin accidents. In attrition warfare, an unstable fighter like that is not acceptable and Wright Field assessed it as such; hence why it was exported to the Soviets.
I recently read that the Soviets generally ignored the “do not exceed” parameters for extended engine life. Basically they flew them like they got them for free, and as such squeezed out everything the plane could offer.
I saw that...and performance was just a tad better than if theyd been re- engined with merlins, by about 4mph....simply by throttling " balls to the wall"!!!
Yes, while making this video I remember reading a remark from a Soviet mechanic that it was better to have a Airacobra flying with an engine with 50 hours lifespan than a grounded one with 150 hours.
@@AllthingsWW2 The Soviets had to deal with an invasion thrust upon them. They had no time for niceties like engine life. It was a question of grab whatever weapon, local or foreign, that you could get, and push it to its maximum to meet a real and immediate danger
The Machine was tweeked out to the max by Bell- the P39Q was built to Soviet specs and the P63 Kingcobra was a complete redesign all while Bell was running training schools, building gun turrets, 300 B29s in Georgia and a short run of P59 jet fighters. They were busy.
Used in a low altitude shorter range roll it was a deadly machine with many advantages One really wonders what it would it have been with the Turbosuper charger, big drop tanks and a cannon that was altered to have the same trajectory as the .50 caliber nose guns The cannon took a long time to get the bugs worked out of it. PT Boat Crews loved that gun in the Pacific A necked down Cannon at 30, 33, or 35 mm might have solved a lot of issues in aircraft usage Some judicious fuselage stretching and some adjustments to the Wings, Elevators, and Rudders could have felt with some CG issues I’d not heard that the Soviets did or did not like the Car Door In the Soviet Union the aircraft was not an Iron Dog Bell could have made some more significant tweaks to the Aircraft It did need more specialized conversion training as it had many quirks
You may already know about the Bell P-63 Kingcobra which Bell put out to make improvements on the unique layout of the P-39. It will be interesting to see if Allthingsworldwartwo's author makes a comparison video of the two.
Yes there was the P-63 Kingcobra but it was given little priority and almost all that were produced went to the Soviets. I did hear of the Airforce using them as gunnery target tow planes but I don't think any ever went into combat for the US Airforce. By the time they were available the Airforce didn't think they were needed.
I have often wondered the same thing. Perhaps a low velocity 20mm canon in place of the.50 caliber BMG in the nose would have worked much better. Both the .50 cal BMG and 20mm Oerlikon were much too high velocity weapons to ever match the trajectory of the 37mm canon. The turbosupercharger on a single Allison might have been problematic from the reliability standpoint just like they were on the P38, but might have been a sweet machine when working right.
One thing about Soviet Fighter Design was that they didn't seem to like guns in the wings. It is my understanding that one of the common modifications to P-39s entering Soviet Service - was to have the .30 cal. guns removed from the wings, which left the most powerful part of the aircraft's armament intact - in the nose - where the Soviets liked it. One thing about that - is that guns in the wings have to be harmonized to converge at a certain distance and they are most effective at that distance. Judging that distance was difficult for newer pilots. For those pilots that could really shoot - guns clustered about the center of the aircraft could be _aimed_ where as the guns in the wings were somewhat Spray and Pray. So - better pilots could take advantage of guns that were centrally mounted. As to being a Tank Killer like many assume - Armor Piercing Ammunition for the 37mm guns - was not furnished to the Soviets (if there even was any) so that it was not as suitable for tank busting as thought. But - one thing the Soviets had to deal with - was German Bombers and a larger cannon helped in shooting down larger aircraft. You will note the Cannon Heavy armament of the Mig-15, which was also intended to shoot down bombers. The Americans - seldom had to deal with enemy bombers - so machine guns which spit out a lot more bullets - gave them a better chance of getting a hit on a maneuvering fighter plane - especially using the Spray and Pray characteristics of aircraft with wing mounted guns as most American aircraft were. Only the P-38 and P-39 retained their nose mounted weapons, where as the P-40 which initially, like the P-39, had two .50 cal weapons in the nose had all the guns moved to the wings in later models. As to the Americans - two things. The P-39 could carry a bomb and while the Soviets may not have used it so much as a ground attack aircraft - the Americans did. Here - in attacking Japanese Airfields - the A6M's higher altitude performance didn't matter. One advantage of having the engine behind the pilot - is that many attacks came from the rear - and the engine as well as the pilots armor - helped protect him. There was an American Lieutenant who was in charge of over seeing the P-39 and other aircraft's development. He was diverted to other things when the decision was made to take off the Turbo Charger and has said he regretted that. What I do not understand, given the thousands of P-39's that were built - was that it was known early on - that eliminating the Turbo Charger severely limited the aircraft's performance. Since one of the criteria was that it be a High Altitude fighter - eliminating the scoop for the Turbo Charger to decrease wind resistance trying to get it's speed above 400 mph - while satisfying one criteria - took away another - in that it was no longer a High Altitude Fighter. That is all a bit of stupidity I have trouble understanding. The P-63 King Cobra had two super chargers with the second functioning at higher altitudes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-63_Kingcobra .
Russian fighters didn't have the wing-mounted guns and fuel tanks as they were made of wood and plywood. Lack of materials and technical capacities made for that. Best regards
“The P-400 is a P-40 with a Zero on its tail 😂😂😂. Best laugh in a good while! I love the look of the P-39. I’m glad the Russians put it to good use. On Guadalcanal, the P-400 pilots complained that Wildcat pilots would use the P-400 to bait the Zeros. Wildcat pilots would comment that the P-400 could not gain altitude fast enough to meet the incoming flights of Zeros. The Zeros dove on the P-400’s, and the Wildcats then dove on the Zeros.
Funny that happen in war thunder your see p400 getting jumped on but usually then see randomly P39 or P63 come out clouds and smack crap out said enemy
The P-39 had many aerodynamic and design issues. The accident rate for them in the US training mill was 3x that of the P-40 units. Tumble and spin was a reality.
I found this video to be both informative and entertaining. It is a good video that shows the good and difficult qualities of the Airacobra. I am an admirer of the P-39 for its good looks and heavy firepower. Thank you for producing this video. I look forward to seeing more of your videos.
Another outstanding video. TY for all the hard work. I have the privilege of living about an hour away from a flying P 39 D. The Central Texas Wing of the Commemorative Air Force has a flying P 39. The D model had the 37mm replaced by a 20mm M1 cannon in the nose firing through the propeller hub. It was great fun to watch it being worked on and maintained during one of my visits. It was also a pleasure to see the P 39 and a P 63 based at CAF Fort Worth together a show this year. Keep up the great work and TY again.
Hey there. I learned to fly at Falcon Field in Pheonix Arizona, and it always amazed me the astonishing amount of warbirds that were available and in flying conditions all over the US. You don't see that in Europe, at least to that extent. Unfortunately I never had the chance to see a P-39 in person, you made me jealous. Thank you!
Bell was always designing planes outside the envelope however most of them didn't make the cut. The Russians loved the P-39 because of the cannon, the Americans hated it because it flew poorly and the Germans liked it cause if you hit it anywhere it fell to pieces.
An old friend of mine, and also member of the aeroclub in my youth days, was fighterpilot (scored with the Knight Cross) on the eastern front on 109s. He shot down nearly 40 of them, the most going down flat spinning. The cannon was shoting slow and with bad ballistic, so you do not had to be afraid of it. They choked about shooting "flat irons" with such a low muzzle velocity, you could see them flying. The high altitude performance was poor and the 109s were there much better, so they mostly had the advantage of atacking from altitude. "Beware of the hun in the sun". He said: "Den taktischen Vorteil der besseren Höhenleistung haben wir immer genutzt."
That seemed to be a very balanced assessment of the design. It is interesting that the USSR preferred the P-39 to 3 classic fighters that were workhorses that really did the heavy lifting for the Western Allies during the toughest stages of the war. I think that well illustrates how different the air war was on the Eastern Front.
@@TheSoundsage Well, the Buffalo was a good fighter when it first came out, but it got a lot heavier and did not get a better engine to compensate for the weight gain.
As much as the spitfire was a workhorse in the west, the complications that involved the lend lease spitfires were immense. For one, there wasn't exactly an abundance of spare parts for the spitfire in the USSR. And besides, there is always the experience factor, meaning that many German pilots had fought spitfire and most were trained to fight against them, so they knew how to fight them Edit: I am talking about the spitfire in specific since this is the one I have more knowledge on, and I am assuming that the other 2 workhorses you mentioned were the mustang and the thunderbolt
@@toast2300 Actually I was thinking Hurricane and P-40. I was talking about the toughest period of the war. By the time the P-40, and P-39 became outnumbered by the P-47 and P-51 it was 1944 and the tide had turned. When the P-39, P-40 and Hurricane were the mainstays, the issue was arguably still in doubt.
It has always been my impression that the turbocharged version of the P-39 was canceled due to production shortages of the GE turbocharger which was also needed for the P-36. Bell was asked to build a more lightened and streamlined non-turbocharged version which was what went into production. The installation of the turbocharger as well as the cannon were what dictated the unique engine installation and the removal of something so central in the design likely had something to do with the center of gravity problems as there were major changes to the design very shortly before it went into production. Still Chuck Yeager spent significant time doing his advanced training in the P-39 and he did not have any thing bad to say about it. He was transitioned into P-51s when he went into combat though.
Hey there. Yes possibly there were various reasons for the deletion of the turbocharger, maybe I should've spent more time in that part of the video, but I felt it was getting long and boring. In the Airacobra, the centre of gravity was generally too far backwards, which means in simple terms, instability. On a conventional monoplane aircraft like the P-39, the CG is always in between the wings and its normally measured as a percentage of the chord (a line that connects the leading edge to the trailing edge of a wing). As this engine was behind the centre of gravitiy, the extra weight of a turbocharger would make the CG travel further backwards, making it even more unstable. That can also be a possibility why it was deleted. I don't know if this was the case. Thank you for your comment.
@@AllthingsWW2 it is my understanding that part of the reason for removing the turbocharger was wind tunnel testing by NACA to identify parasitic drag. One of the recommendations by NACA was to remove the turbo supercharger because the intakes and exhaust from it increase parasitic drag. One has to wonder what NACA thought was going to force air into the engine at high altitude if you don't have a turbo supercharger!
The added drag and weight of the turbo not only cancelled any advantages but meant less full could be carried and a higher wing loading would make it even more unstable than it was. Highly skilled pilots tolerated it, but it killed many an average pilot with the tumble and spin behaviour. Lots of aerodynamic and design flaws.
I like your regular format, but I like this format as well. I like the regular format for its detail, head to head comparisons, and it’s uniqueness. The “holiday” format maintains the style and feel for the most part (ie, narration, use of paintings, ace profiles, ect). In some ways it kinda of flows better, giving a more holistic impression of the aircraft. I especially liked the part with the quotes from the aces, shown alongside their pictures. I’m looking forward to your next video, whatever the format.
Yeager LOVED the P-39. Yes, it was a low altitude plane. It's poor performance vs the Zero was the poor early-war understanding (in all US types) of the proper tactics vs the Zero. By then it had a reputation. How many lives, USSAF and USN, would have been saved if they had listened to Chennault?
Keep in mind during the first one or two year chaos on the Eastern front no one cares or kept track of kills properly for Soviet pilots - recordkeeping was poor and this was not at all a priority compared to everything else going on. Soviet fighters didn't have cameras confirming kills until later in the war. Many Soviet aces have their kills greatly underestimated compared to Germany for example.
Great video keep up the good work 👍 . Love to see a video on early war fighter Pzl11, Polikarpov1-15 Kawasaki ki 10 . Thanks for your endeavours. Have a good Xmas.
Thank you! I am planning to do the Fokker D.XXI and its role in the Winter War between Finland and the Soviet Union. It should come out pretty soon. I'll add the others to the "to do" list. Thank you for you suggestions and have a great xmas!
@@AllthingsWW2 keep up the good work maybe you could do a combination video with aircraft that flew side by side in Combat at the same time this Might make your job a little easier Especially when dealing with early war and late war aircraft Once you have covered the big 10 as I call them (aircraft people can name from the war) Take care
I read that the P-400 in US service, in the Pacific, had an extra problem. The British modification (P-400) had changed the oxygen canisters for their own type. Yet the US didn't have any, or nearly enough, of those oxygen canisters to equip their P-400s. So they were further limited to operationally lower altitudes, giving their opponents easy bounces from above.
Please do not concern yourself about the format. You have a following so I understand your desire to meet your own standards, but the video was wonderful - informative factually but with good video quality and content and great flow. Thank you so much for expanding my understanding of the P39. I look forward to more. And I think Salvador Hurtado (before me) is spot on. Low altitude, good survivability, and good armament add up to success in devoted pilots hands.
Hey there! I will certainly do the P-63. But it will be a while until I get it done. I'll probably go into the winter war (finland vs soviet union) on my next video. Then I'll take a few videos break from the eastern front. Thank you for the suggestion.
@@AllthingsWW2 Check the Finnish Air Force history site. The remark the Finns made about the P-39 was very interesting. They weren't afraid to meet any Russian fighter in a dogfight except for the "vastly superior Bell p-39".
Another flaw in the P-39D was that the 37mm gun was very prone to jam, after only 3 to 6 shots fired. The P-400 with the 20mm gun did not have that problem, and most had been sent to the Soviets, who loved them. Later models fixed the 37mm gun issue, and the Soviets loved them, too.
12:38 Not surprising. Spitfire did not suited well to poor airfields of eastern front, and above all R-R Merlin was demanding engine. It needed highly trained mechanics and quality replacement parts to keep it running. Merlin did not run well, or at all, on poor quality fuel and lubricants. Soviet standard avgas was dubious and highly variable quality. Their domestic Klimov and Mikulin engines were both extremely low stressed to overcome this. Klimov was 35 litres for 1100hp, Mikulin was whopping 47 litres for 1700hp. Airacobras Allison too needed better fuel than Soviet regular, but was an degree easier engine.
Five of the 10 highest scoring Soviet aces logged the majority of their kills in P-39s. Grigoriy Rechkalov scored 44 victories in Airacobras. Pokryshkin scored 47 of his 59 victories in P-39s, making him the highest scoring P-39 fighter pilot of any nation, and the highest scoring Allied fighter pilot using an American fighter.
Thanks for the excellent presentation on a much misunderstood plane. One of my uncles was a flight instructor in P-39s and he had absolute confidence in it. He was assigned to P-47s when he went into combat and he thought the 39 was superior down low. I've been building and flying radio control models since 1971 and the Cobra is the best flying WW2 fighter from a modelers perspective. I've had four from 36" to 80" span and all are superb. Stable and aerobatic, it's just beautifully designed for scale modelling. They make me look good compared to those flying just about any other WW2 fighter. Also. Part of the reason the Soviets did so well with the beautiful bird was they yanked out a lot of "extra" stuff then had the time to develop tactics. Most of that seemed to be waiting at their best altitude for the Germans to come down to them and taking the hits from the first bounce. Then? The Cobras held most of the cards. Even the Americans discovered by Guadalcanal that down low and at high speed the Cobra could outmaneuver anything the Japanese had. They did quite well if there were Wildcats or P-38s to fly top cover.
The Allison engine lack of high altitude performance on the P-39, P-40 and P-51 deserves more explanation. The supercharger on the Allison V-1710 was intended only as a low altitude device. In the late 30's, the USAAF was hell bent in using turbochargers in all its aircraft, as a second stage charging system for good high altitude performance. When the turbocharger was yanked from the P-39, it was left with a unmodified supercharger. Almost all other engine manufacturers, like Rolls Royce (Merlin), Dainler-Benz (DB-601) and Nakajima (Sakae), had their superchargers developed as medium to high altitude devices. Rolls Royce would even produce Merlin variants specifically to operate the best at low, medium or high altitude. But in the US the Allison was developed focusing solely on the P-38, leaving the P-39 and P-40 with a under-developed engine. This situation would change only in 1943, when a V-1710 equipped with dual stage supercharger (a technology available years before in naval US fighters with Pratt & Whitney engines) became available. But by them it was too late, because Packard was rolling out the V-1650 for the Mustang and both the P-39 and P-40 were relegated to secondary holes.
Yes, unfortunately I didn't delve much on the engine. Normally I do that when I go through an aircraft's variants and I didn't do that in this video. I hope you still enjoyed it!
Allison never made a reliable high altitude engine. Even the Allisons on the P-82 in Korea were a maintenance nightmare - 33 hrs of maint for 1 hr of ops. NAA was outraged at having the Allison engines forced on them.
About half of the P39's Lend Leased to USSR were flown from the factory in upstate New York to the start of the Northwest Staging Route in Montana then on to Alaska where they were turned over to USSR pilots. As I understand it. Lend-Lease program in Alaska - TH-cam
Horses for courses, as we say in English. I like the Airacobra layout; with a more powerful 2 speed, 2 stage supercharged Merlin in it, it could have been a better all rounder. Even so, it gave good service in some theatres, especially the Soviet Union.
The P-63 King Cobra looked the same but it had the 1,800hp V12 Allison tubo used in the P-38 lightning and could fly high and over 400 mph . Odd he never mentioned it. Over 3000 were made,
The Brewster Buffalo begs to differ with the P-39 being the most controversial US fighter. But it is surprising that the Soviets didn't show much of an interest in the P-38 and P-47, even though both are better suited for the ground attack role than the Airacobra. I do seem to recall that the Spitfires were used planes that went through a lot by the time they were handed over to the USSR, not that much of a surprise that they choose the american planes that came right off the production line instead. Great channel btw, really like the "less known planes" theme.
I read a long time ago the reason for shipping "used" Spits was due to the British "borrowing" new US aircraft Britain was supposed to deliver to the USSR on the Murmansk Run.
Thank you! I think the Spitfires also had political reasons to be sidelined as Stalin wasn't overly happy to receive Mk V's when Britain was already using the Mk IX, but I don't really know how much of this is hearsay. But what I meant by that phrase was that the Soviets did have a choice. Now you made me want to do a video on the Brewster Buffalo! Thank you for your comment!
Soviets had P-47 but not a lot and they were used for air defense of Moscow and never forward deployed. I doubt if they had P-36 in any numbers. They were costly both to buy and to operate. Rather have twice as many P-39.
@@keithstudly6071 According to Hyperwar Lend Lease shipments Army Air Forces, 203 P47's were shipped to USSR. However it does not show any P63's being shipped while other sources show over 2,000. That may have had something to do with the planned invasion of China by the USSR.
I love my P-39 Cobra It's a 80 inch flying model and looks like no other warbird. It looks fast while sitting still! Boy is it fast. I use to race them in AMA events. Mine has reached speeds up to 144 mph's. It's ironic that I lived in Buffalo NY and had no idea it was built there, same with the P-40. maybe I'll build a P- 63 King cobra.PS love the sound of them taking off in the movie Airforce.
You had a great opportunity to use IL-2 Great Battles for this video, as the P-39 is featured in the Battle of Kuban module. Hoping you decide to utilize IL-2 in the future!
Hey there. Dully noted! War Thunder and Il-2 are two great games, albeit very different ones. Where one is remarkable in fun and the amount of content, the other is in realism and storytelling. I like them both very much.
When I was a tween, about 1965, I purchased and built a tiny P-39 plastic model, 6" wingspan, because I felt sorry for it. In those days the only word in common library language is that the Airicobra was a dog. The Russian factor didn't reach English-written books till much later, when the ground attack cliche reached our shores. The P-39 looks so innocent until you notice the cannon. It warms my heart to find that many Russian pilots genuinely loved the airplane. thank you for this.
Great vid! The prototype should have had weight to simulate weapons and armor added during its evaluation. Perhaps then it would have gotten the supercharger it needed.
It is a good-looking air-craft, no doubt. You described the different philosophies between the Soviet & Western Air Forces regarding flying this plane in a most succinct & interesting manner. Good show.
I wonder why Bell could not just put back that second stage supercharger and so what if it caused more drag? I would love to build a 1/72 scale model kit of one in Soviet markings.
The Spitfire Mk V was utterly useless at low level. It had a single stage single speed supercharger geared for use at high altitude. At low level the engine had to be throttled back to avoid the supercharger exceeding the allowed manifold pressure wasting much of the engine power. The Soviets liked the later Mk IX.
Early, model of Airacobra was faster down low than early spits. The idea that they could build a high altitude aircraft without adequate supercharging or turbo charging is incredibly stupid. If you notice the program officer was the same guy who crashed the prototype p38. Some people think this guy was a good engineer personally I'm not impressed. The p-39 had so much potential that was compromised by removing the turbo charger. But then keep in mind it wasn't to anticipated that we would be sending the plane overseas to fight. The plane was the intended more for defense of Continental us against heavy bombers and an invading or attacking Force. This was influenced by the United States Army Air corps theory on long range bombing. Based on their testing they felt it was possible for a country to build a bomber they could reach the United States and bomb with a reasonable payload. The xb15 by Boeing was part of the experiments to prove the concept. The same could be said about the p-40 having a single stage supercharger. The range difference between the p39 and the p40 was due to the absence of fuselage fuel tank space on the p-39. Hawker typhoons we're designed for high altitude combat the engine however, failed to provide the intended power. I believe their ideal fighting altitude was around 15000 feet. They would tool along at that altitude inviting the Luftwaffe to bounce then. As soon as I saw the luftwaffe start to come down they would turn into a the attack and give them a nasty surprise. I read this in Wing Commander by Johnny Johnston. Not sure why I brought up the hawker typhoon. Perhaps it was an example of the best laid plans of mice and men. In any case if you keep playing within its desired operational limits and have tactics to compensate for any disadvantages the aircraft might have you can have success. An example is the typhoon another example is the F4F wildcat.
I thought the Russians received ex-RAF Battle of Britain Spitfire Mk IIs and Mk VBs, marks which had been removed from front line service upon the appearance of the new German FW-190As. And unlike the brand new factory-fresh P-39s fighters arriving with Cyrllic instruments and Russian manuals, the British had supplied surplus, used ex-RAF planes with manuals and instruments all in English. It would have been interesting if the Estonian order for MK I's back in 1939 had been permitted to go through (and possibly escaped to Finland to help in the Winter War).
Boost regulators were used even in the earliest Merlin II, so even Spit I & II had automatic boost control at low level . Perhaps you're thinking of the P-40 which had to be throttled back in a dive. The Allison -73, P-40K was the first to have auto boost control IIRC.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Not supercharger input power control, if the butterfly valve could not be opened fully below the full throttle height it does not matter if it is limited manually or automatically.
In my personal opinion .... an American built fighter "Airacobra" P-39 ... it was an unique airplane with some advantages and some disadvantages, as well ... but in general .... a pretty good one !!!!
The removal of the supercharger was a huge mistake. It doomed the aircraft in American service. I have talked with some of the American pilots who flew the P400 (which was the version built for the British and rejected and pressed into service by the U.S.) in the South Pacific and they all said its one redeeming quality was it was tough. One of the pilots I talked to said that if he had been in any other aircraft when the Zero shot him down, he would have been dead. The engine took two cannon shells that would have punched through ordinary armor plate. He managed to bailout of his craft. He also stated that it was a sitting duck to the Zero. So it was probably the most enigmatic of all of the American aircraft built. It was not as bad as the Brewster Buffalo though.
My father was Chief Supply Officer at Ladd Field during the war. As a child of immigrants, he spoke Russian, so he was in charge of the transfer of P-39s to Soviet pilots. He spoke glowingly of the Soviet pilots, saying that many of them were "just kids," but, very skilled flyers. They had flown to Fairbanks in airplanes that were in disposable condition, hopped into the P-39s, and headed back across Siberia. Once, in talking about the Lend Lease program, he said, "All we did was paint red stars on them and hand them over."
In the interwar period - the USA looked at aircraft development and saw Europeans making fast twin-engine bombers. They scoffed and decided that making a larger and heavier bomber faster than a fighter was a fool's game, and instead they should make the enemy fighters slower by operating at high altitude. Thus, the US focused on the B-17/24/29, but the enemy still had their do-217s, He-111s and the like. In that context - speed to catch light bombers, and a heavy armament to quickly take the machine down were more important than altitude performance, because it was thought the friendly bombers could fend for themselves. As pointed out early in the video - the P-39 freed from the drag of extra air-intakes and the weight of superchargers was faster than the prototype that retained them. The P-39 fit the requirements expected of it very well. Unfortunately - real life did not quite match the expected scenarios.
Nice video - well-balanced! Had a good laugh about swapping out the Spitfire for the P-39 seen to be a "war crime" to the British. My take is, I've never been a huge fan of the P-39, but was well-aware that Soviet pilots loved it. It had it's issues, it had it's pluses. I think you're right - you either loved it, or you hated it. Well-done!
BTW another (American!) fan of the Airacobra was one Chuck Yeager. He finished his fighter pilot training flying Airacobras and it remained one of his favorite aircraft to fly.
I visited a USAAF training center in Central Washington (Ephrata) state where P-39 training occurred. My friends bomb group also trained there (483rd). My friend was shot down in july ,1944 in a B-17G. He remained a POW until end of war.
It's nicely proportioned aircraft.I often imagine a number of changes could have greatly improved it.I bet if the cockpit was forward a little more the cg would have improved and would have also given the pilot incredible visibility
Yet another one unaware of the flaps, i guessing. Dont use autoflaps, cause they only swiching between no/combat when in fight. Manually go to landing set, and overturn the shit from almost anything, exept completely dedicated turnfighters. Cobra is cheaty.
Hello, this is a nice video. I am from Bulgaria. I read to P-39 aircraft from in book "Sky of War" from fighter pilot A.I. Pokrishkin. You have 12 victory with P-39 in WW2.
Chuck Yeager trained on a p-39. He said that a certain amount of crashes were do to a control surface assembled incorrectly by a single factory worker who bolted it in backwards because he thought he knew more than the engineers who designed it. When a pilot did a certain roll the bolt would slide and lock up the control surface and ultimately crashing the plane
crashes were due to the P-39 being unstable near the stall, dreadfull roll-yaw coupling, airfoil that delayed stall recovery, extremely unacceptable light stick forces under g manouvers, etc Wright Field concluded it to be an unstable gun platform during manouvers and slow speed handling was dangerous.
P-63 video on your Channel? The Russian engineers along with Bell did modifications for the Q version. Roosevelt asked rethat the P-63 not be used in combat which Stalin ignored and the King Cobra had some aspect of the same technology as the mustang in the wing.
I read some years ago ( don't remember where) that the 39 suffered from a lack of on- going development and improvements that other planes got over the course of the war.
The p63 was basically the aircraft that the p-39 should have been in the beginning. I can't remember exactly but I think Bell actually funded most of the research, design and construction of the prototype out of their own pocket.
@@tomhart6568 you get down to it the r&d today would bankrupt any company. Planes are so damn complex today with all the systems they have in them. At the same time they shoot themselves in the foot by not keeping it simple when possible. Don't reinvent the wheel if you already got a wheel that's my point of view.
As it was it needed a pilot who fully understood it and knew how to capitalize on its’ strengths. Had it been given more development priority, it likely would have been an excellent performer, and more widely accepted.
My favorite thing about the P-39 is the door. I'm too tall and too old to scramble into a real warbird cockpit but the door just makes it seem so much more inviting/user friendly... -- I actually went to the air force recruiter when I was a senior in high school but my height and my eyes were probably going to keep me out of ANY cockpits and then I found out I wouldn't even be eligible to _try_ until I was an officer and you couldn't be an officer w/out college and _then_ he said I could maybe do something "fun" like getting to drive around a lot while working in the motor pool for a couple years and _then_ use the GI BIll to go to college and _then_ apply for an officer program and _then_ apply to be a pilot and only _THEN_ find out for sure if my height and eyes would truly keep me grounded ...which sounded like long odds so I _declined_ to sign up.
I can't find the reference, but I have read that the spitfire was unpopular in soviet service due to its limited range , high maintainence requirements, and that the examples sent to the soviet union were half worn out when received.
@@tomhart6568 Emil was kinda quickly outdated, and mostly became F/B in 41-42, so, no wonder. As for 190, by russian source, "for unknown reason, they were thinking, 190 can outperform p39 vertically, but it wasn't", - (previous high altitude experience, maybe?) And 190 known for being mediocre/bad horizontally, so..
The US aircraft with the most kills by a single pilot was the 39 (Pokrushkyn) with 59 kills. In the East with the wing guns removed for balance issues, the plane did very well.
P-39: "You too my second stage super charger away, but I still proved I could fight!" To be honest, I often consider the P-39 to be America's Bf109. If it was given more love, I can only imagine what kind of improvements it would of saw. I mean the P51 wasn't a great fighter in it's early history as well, and surprisingly became one of the best aircraft of the war with modifications/improvements when time went on. Difference between a P-39, P-400, and later P-63 are not significant when compared to the nearly complete overhaul you see aircraft like the P51 and Bf109 go through, throughout the war. I mean they event went through massive airframe changes, something you don't see the P-39 go through.
The P-63 King Cobra looked the same but it had the 1,800hp V12 Allison tubo used in the P-38 lightning and could fly high and over 400 mph . Odd he never mentioned it. Over 3000 were made,
@@Crashed131963 I meant externally but yes. P47 and P51 saw extensive external modifications. P39 compared to the P63 it's pretty much a longer fuselage but outside of that visually nearly identical to the P39. It's sums up that the P39's biggest issue was it's powerplant.
He didn't mention that the soviets usually removed armor protective plates for the pilot and at least two of the MGs, thus lightening the aircraft. This was almost always done from what I've read, but if anyone disagrees that's okay. It's possible I'm wrong because why did he not mention this in the video?
You would have to include details how later models (particularly from Ks onwards, and especially Qs) ran into balance problems from having increased weight towards the back. The Soviets lost ace pilots from earlier variants in the later variants, before they instituted many balance and tail reinforcement changes. The tail in later models also warped in maneuvers from the increased rear balance problem. Early versions were excellent, particularly those with 20 mm cannons (D and Es). The balance and tail problem of later models was solved by the Russians, but never understood on an engineering level...
Listening to the Soviet Pilot's recommendation to, "keep the needle on the ball" on his instrument panel, I reckon that the P39 was an unstable fighter that the pilot had to learn to fly with, or else stall and fall with to one's death. Definitely not a bird that a heavy handed pilot could merely fly as an extension of her will. Harmony was required between plane and pilot to stay airborne
Exactly true. Wright Field test pilots said exactly that - it was an unstable gun platform in air combat manouvers. In US and Soviet training units, the accident rate was unacceptably high. 3x higher than the P-40 training units.
I always liked the looks . It looked racy and sexy . And who didn't love that huge 37 mm firepower ? But I think the designers failed it . Seems the Soviets were more patient with it and learned how to manage it .
Ouch, pictures of aircraft production lines - it breaks my heart to see all those precious airframes, knowing there are so few left. Why oh why did the Army prevent Allison from developing dual two speed superchargers for the 1710. I know the Army intended Allison to use a GE turbocharger, but what a ‘what if’ scenario. Edit - interesting, AllThingsWW2’s P-63 episode indicate that its 1710 had a two-stage supercharger.
Lacking a turbo it was not meant for high altitude interceptor. With the 37 mm gun and mid engine it could have been a formidable ground attack plane but OH WELL.
Not a fighter but the 37mm cannon in the propeller hub was devastating for ground attack. Could take a lot of battle damage and bring its driver home. All in all a very good plane.
I have always been fascinated with the P-39 ever since as kid I bought the old Revel and Airfix kits. The fact that under 10,000 ft and in the hands of an experienced pilot it could generally hold it's own against supposedly better aircraft and the fact that the later P-63 Kingcobra in terms of performance was rated as good as the P-51 and the P-47 suggests that the concept of the P-39 wasn't that bad.
haha I think I had that Airfix kit too !
My favorite plane from ww2 and also because of model kit as well
On the eastern front, where most dogfights were at relatively low altitude, the P-39 really performed well. It was well liked by Soviet pilots and the cannon was able to basically one shot fighter sized targets. I feel it's a hugely underated plane in the West.
In Yeager's Autobio he loved the P-39.
If it were as good as a Mustang or a Thunderbolt it would have been used more.
Truth is it's a CAS platform; no more a fighter than an A-10.
My mother and one of her brothers worked at the plant during WWII. They were outside the plant at shift change when one of the aircraft, up on a test flight, crashed into the building, killing several people. It was not reported on at the time, security reasons, but the aftermath was vivid in her memory forever after that, the smell of charred flesh. All that remains of the plant now is a plaque in the parking lot at Buffalo International Airport.
Вечная память всем кто сражался против нацизма. Вечная благодарность вашей маме и её брату от русских, Советских людей за вашу помощь народу СССР сражавшемуся насмерть против гитлеровцев. Не забудем.
@@stanleywhiteman6450 salute
I am from Buffalo and my grandmother also worked at Bell.
I see these planes and wonder how many of them she worked on.
@@stanleywhiteman6450 Gratitude to you from people like me who know the crucial role that Russia played as an Ally to the USA in WW1 and WW2. Peace.
Your mother's one brother would be your uncle 😂
i knew a australian fighter pilot who flew in battle of Britain and in the middle east,we used to talk regularly about different planes he flew i asked about the air cobra once he said"it was well armed but could be deadly trying to pull it out of a dive also would get into uncontrolled flat spin or just spin out of control some times without any reason that was uderstood at the time he said that a lot of very experienced pilots lost thier lives in it he didn't like it at all"and he flew many different fighter planes.
The relatively small wings worked against the weight of the plane with all its added armor, something the army neglected to take into consideration when rushing this into production. As a result, the plane tended to go into a snap roll in tight fast turns. A good pilot knew the limitations and used the trim controls to limit the flap movements to counter this, but this would be difficult to many pilots in combat.
Well said. The P-39 did not handle well at all in air combat manouvers according to test pilots in Material Command. CofG was also a factor as ammo from the cannon was used up.
It is notable that airplanes like the P 39 and the Brewster Buffalo were very unpopular with the american and british pilots and at the same time so beloved by the russian and finns. I think the answer is very simple; if you fought at low altitude, both machines were rugged and agile. If you had to fight at high altitude they were a real death trap. The pacific and the western european fronts saw a lot of high altitude combats, escorting strategic bombers, intercepting and whatnot, flying low made you vulnerable to deadly flak. While on the eastern front, most missions involved ground attack, strafing and frontline interception so it was a very different story. A lot of these considerations can be found on Adolf Galland's "Die ertzen und die letzen" which I recommend anyone interested in the subject to read.
Greetings!
Thank you. My thoughts as well.
Something you've forgotten to take into account about the P-39 in the Pacific which IMV saw it unfairly criticised regardless of the USAAC's interference re the proposed turbo-supercharger and laminar wing in its design phase. During its particular period before being superseded, it was up against the truly spectacular A6M2 Model 21 & later Model 32 (Zeke) and Ki-43 (Oscar) with its butterfly flaps, two of the most agile handling aircraft of the era at any altitude. Even the legendary Spitfire was outclassed in a turning dual with either of those.
And A6M2 performance was at its optimum at 15,000ft according to Saburo Sakai who said the only aircraft which really scared him (during that phase of the war) was the P-38 when it was introduced into theatre because of its superior high altitude performance. We know that the Brit P-400 contract was cancelled because of its poor ROC & higher altitude performance attributable to its single-stage single-speed supercharger. And of course, equally well known, the Soviets loved it and that it excelled in that theatre where much of the air to air and air to ground combat occurred well below 10,00ft where neither rubbish ROC nor lack of turbo-supercharging hampered it.
@@theblytonian3906 I agree with everything you wrote on your comment in general, thank you to comment my posting. And I have an honest question to you. I read Samurai, the biography book about Saburo Sakai and I can't quite recall him actually fighting P 38's. I remember him commenting about things he heard of the Corsair and "newer models of P 39's and p 40's", but I can´t find the passage you mentioned. (By the way, in the 1980's I had the privilege of shaking hands with him and also with Gregg "papy" Boyngton at an airshow of the confederate airforce in McAllen, Texas. So I'm really interested in the subject).
As i remember, many of the P-400 were used at Guadalcanal in ground attack missions, yet I think it was the F4F's that did the interception and dogfighting with the legendary "Cactus airforce".
Warm greetings and happy hollidays.
@@salvadorhurtado9988 Yes he fought P-38s. I'll have a look and see if I can find the passage over the next few days. As a retired professional pilot since who started flying aged 17 and a WWI & II aviation aficionado since before then I remember it particularly well as it surprised me. He also fought F6Fs much later. There's a legendary part in one of the chapters where he fought a running defensive battle against a hoard (15) of them trying their utmost to kill him in the vicinity of Iwo Jima (before the February '45 battle) where through a combination of determination, perseverance, skill and luck he managed to survive.
Never had the opportunity to meet either of those legends. OTOH I've flown into Henderson and a stack of other famous Pacific airfields though. Evocative to feel the climate, sense the endless ocean and see the terrain over which they were fighting.
@@theblytonian3906 Thank you very much. I remember the passage you mention, and what impressed me the most when I read it was the claim (which I think is true) that in that particular encounter his plane came back without a single bullet hole. And he actually flew with a blind eye! (Because of his Guadalcanal wounds).
It must be wonderful to have flown, as you did, over the Pacific Ocean. I can tell you remember it vividly.
Happy new year to you and your's!
I like your videos. They are well put together, no matter the format. These videos provide people like me with quality information and entertainment for free, so you shouldn't have to apologize. Some people simply complain too much.
Thank you! This is a very nice comment! Appreciate it!
@@AllthingsWW2 Not just the lack of turbo, but also the short wingspan made it a low altitude specialist, but they had low altitude Spitfires with clipped wings too, so if one is going to compare Airacobra to Spitfire, it would be to the clipped wing, low altitude version.
No matter how much you learn about these fine warbirds, there is always something new to learn. Sometimes it’s all about one’s point of view. Other times something comes to light through a new source like a former pilot, although there are very few left after all these years. Thanks fri bringing everything you can!
@@alan6832 the difference in handling between the P-39 and Spitfire was like chalk and cheese. Wright Field test pilots concluded that the P-39 was an unstable gun platform for air combat manouvers. It had a host of aerodynamic and design issues making it unsuitable for the average pilot. The Spitfire on the other hand was a high performance, agile fighter that was very forgiving in combat.
This fighter had some of the best lines of all the ww2 fighters. A pleasure to look at. I read that one of the reasons Russian pilots loved this fighter was because the canon and two machine guns were centrally mounted. This made those guns much easier to aim since there was no convergence factor to consider while aiming.
When I was in 7th grade my teacher's father came in and spoke to the class. He flew P-39s and P-51s in the Pacific during WWII. He said the P-39 was his favorite plane to fly because nothing beat that 37mm cannon in the nose. I've come to realize, as long as you were at a lower altitude, it was an effective plane.
The P-39 has good performance. Now, this is going to sound strange but 80% if the time the Soviet missions were a combat sweep, not much going on. Plain old operational losses are what kills most people. That's a ground loop or a mechanical issue. The P-39 was not a great fighter but it was a good enough fighter. Also, the IL-2 were forbidden flying about 5,000 meters. That was the perfect altitude for the P-39. The P-39Q was a fair match for the FW-190 or the BF-109G. Why? Because post Kursk the P-39 was flown by good Soviet pilots and most of the good Fascist pilots were dead. A good pilot in a fair aircraft is better than a poor pilot in a good aircraft.
The P-39 required a skilled pilot to be handled in combat against the LW fighters. It was not for the average pilot being unstable in air combat manouvers close to the stall - roll-yaw coupling and poor recovery from the stall caused tumble and spin. It also had extremely light stick forces during high g manouvers. Bottom line: it killed many a pilot in training (in the US & USSR) and in combat unless they were well evolved stick and rudder combat pilots. REF: Wright Field test pilot reports & Soviet anecdotes.
@@bobsakamanos4469 good = skilled. average = mediocre. Ground loops from tail draggers took out a good number of BF-109 and Spitfires. I'm not saying the Iron Dog was a great aircraft. It was mediocre at best (and cheap, less than half the cost of a P-38). But the Soviets liked it for the radio, cockpit layout, a relief tube, cockpit visibility (nearly as good as a bubble canopy) and tricycle landing gear. If I were to change my original statement the Iron Dog has mediocre performance. If you talk to pilots they tend to like tricycle aircraft, there isn't stupid taxing mistakes. War has its lethal dumb side. Stupid mistakes kills a solid 5-7%. At least the Iron Dog had a lower than average ground accident rate. I admire the men who can make the machines work. The Soviets hated the P-47 but the USAAF in the Pacific made them work by using an Australian produced fuel tank coupled with "boom & zoom" tactics. The Soviets in 1944 were in the same situation as the USN aviators in 1944; the LW pilots and IJN aviators were a shadow of their past in experience.
@@Easy-Eight the P-39 had a high accident rate on approach / landing due to the flaws I've already mentioned. That was on top of the tumble and flat spin accidents. In attrition warfare, an unstable fighter like that is not acceptable and Wright Field assessed it as such; hence why it was exported to the Soviets.
I recently read that the Soviets generally ignored the “do not exceed” parameters for extended engine life. Basically they flew them like they got them for free, and as such squeezed out everything the plane could offer.
I saw that...and performance was just a tad better than if theyd been re- engined with merlins, by about 4mph....simply by throttling " balls to the wall"!!!
Yes, while making this video I remember reading a remark from a Soviet mechanic that it was better to have a Airacobra flying with an engine with 50 hours lifespan than a grounded one with 150 hours.
@@AllthingsWW2 The Soviets had to deal with an invasion thrust upon them. They had no time for niceties like engine life. It was a question of grab whatever weapon, local or foreign, that you could get, and push it to its maximum to meet a real and immediate danger
W.S. .................they flew them like they stole them , I'm sure we are waiting for our ( lend lease )check to arrive ?????????
The Machine was tweeked out to the max by Bell- the P39Q was built to Soviet specs and the P63 Kingcobra was a complete redesign all while Bell was running training schools, building gun turrets, 300 B29s in Georgia and a short run of P59 jet fighters.
They were busy.
Used in a low altitude shorter range roll it was a deadly machine with many advantages
One really wonders what it would it have been with the Turbosuper charger, big drop tanks and a cannon that was altered to have the same trajectory as the .50 caliber nose guns
The cannon took a long time to get the bugs worked out of it. PT Boat Crews loved that gun in the Pacific
A necked down Cannon at 30, 33, or 35 mm might have solved a lot of issues in aircraft usage
Some judicious fuselage stretching and some adjustments to the Wings, Elevators, and Rudders could have felt with some CG issues
I’d not heard that the Soviets did or did not like the Car Door
In the Soviet Union the aircraft was not an Iron Dog
Bell could have made some more significant tweaks to the Aircraft
It did need more specialized conversion training as it had many quirks
You may already know about the Bell P-63 Kingcobra which Bell put out to make improvements on the unique layout of the P-39.
It will be interesting to see if Allthingsworldwartwo's author makes a comparison video of the two.
Yes there was the P-63 Kingcobra but it was given little priority and almost all that were produced went to the Soviets. I did hear of the Airforce using them as gunnery target tow planes but I don't think any ever went into combat for the US Airforce. By the time they were available the Airforce didn't think they were needed.
I have often wondered the same thing. Perhaps a low velocity 20mm canon in place of the.50 caliber BMG in the nose would have worked much better. Both the .50 cal BMG and 20mm Oerlikon were much too high velocity weapons to ever match the trajectory of the 37mm canon. The turbosupercharger on a single Allison might have been problematic from the reliability standpoint just like they were on the P38, but might have been a sweet machine when working right.
With a turbosupercharger system, it would have even less internal fuel. So range would be even less than the standard P-39.
One thing about Soviet Fighter Design was that they didn't seem to like guns in the wings. It is my understanding that one of the common modifications to P-39s entering Soviet Service - was to have the .30 cal. guns removed from the wings, which left the most powerful part of the aircraft's armament intact - in the nose - where the Soviets liked it.
One thing about that - is that guns in the wings have to be harmonized to converge at a certain distance and they are most effective at that distance. Judging that distance was difficult for newer pilots.
For those pilots that could really shoot - guns clustered about the center of the aircraft could be _aimed_ where as the guns in the wings were somewhat Spray and Pray. So - better pilots could take advantage of guns that were centrally mounted.
As to being a Tank Killer like many assume - Armor Piercing Ammunition for the 37mm guns - was not furnished to the Soviets (if there even was any) so that it was not as suitable for tank busting as thought.
But - one thing the Soviets had to deal with - was German Bombers and a larger cannon helped in shooting down larger aircraft. You will note the Cannon Heavy armament of the Mig-15, which was also intended to shoot down bombers.
The Americans - seldom had to deal with enemy bombers - so machine guns which spit out a lot more bullets - gave them a better chance of getting a hit on a maneuvering fighter plane - especially using the Spray and Pray characteristics of aircraft with wing mounted guns as most American aircraft were. Only the P-38 and P-39 retained their nose mounted weapons, where as the P-40 which initially, like the P-39, had two .50 cal weapons in the nose had all the guns moved to the wings in later models.
As to the Americans - two things.
The P-39 could carry a bomb and while the Soviets may not have used it so much as a ground attack aircraft - the Americans did. Here - in attacking Japanese Airfields - the A6M's higher altitude performance didn't matter.
One advantage of having the engine behind the pilot - is that many attacks came from the rear - and the engine as well as the pilots armor - helped protect him.
There was an American Lieutenant who was in charge of over seeing the P-39 and other aircraft's development. He was diverted to other things when the decision was made to take off the Turbo Charger and has said he regretted that.
What I do not understand, given the thousands of P-39's that were built - was that it was known early on - that eliminating the Turbo Charger severely limited the aircraft's performance. Since one of the criteria was that it be a High Altitude fighter - eliminating the scoop for the Turbo Charger to decrease wind resistance trying to get it's speed above 400 mph - while satisfying one criteria - took away another - in that it was no longer a High Altitude Fighter. That is all a bit of stupidity I have trouble understanding.
The P-63 King Cobra had two super chargers with the second functioning at higher altitudes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-63_Kingcobra
.
Russian fighters didn't have the wing-mounted guns and fuel tanks as they were made of wood and plywood. Lack of materials and technical capacities made for that. Best regards
“The P-400 is a P-40 with a Zero on its tail 😂😂😂. Best laugh in a good while!
I love the look of the P-39. I’m glad the Russians put it to good use. On Guadalcanal, the P-400 pilots complained that Wildcat pilots would use the P-400 to bait the Zeros. Wildcat pilots would comment that the P-400 could not gain altitude fast enough to meet the incoming flights of Zeros. The Zeros dove on the P-400’s, and the Wildcats then dove on the Zeros.
Funny that happen in war thunder your see p400 getting jumped on but usually then see randomly P39 or P63 come out clouds and smack crap out said enemy
The P-39 had many aerodynamic and design issues. The accident rate for them in the US training mill was 3x that of the P-40 units. Tumble and spin was a reality.
I found this video to be both informative and entertaining. It is a good video that shows the good and difficult qualities of the Airacobra. I am an admirer of the P-39 for its good looks and heavy firepower. Thank you for producing this video. I look forward to seeing more of your videos.
Another outstanding video. TY for all the hard work. I have the privilege of living about an hour away from a flying P 39 D. The Central Texas Wing of the Commemorative Air Force has a flying P 39. The D model had the 37mm replaced by a 20mm M1 cannon in the nose firing through the propeller hub. It was great fun to watch it being worked on and maintained during one of my visits. It was also a pleasure to see the P 39 and a P 63 based at CAF Fort Worth together a show this year. Keep up the great work and TY again.
Hey there. I learned to fly at Falcon Field in Pheonix Arizona, and it always amazed me the astonishing amount of warbirds that were available and in flying conditions all over the US. You don't see that in Europe, at least to that extent. Unfortunately I never had the chance to see a P-39 in person, you made me jealous. Thank you!
Bell was always designing planes outside the envelope however most of them didn't make the cut. The Russians loved the P-39 because of the cannon, the Americans hated it because it flew poorly and the Germans liked it cause if you hit it anywhere it fell to pieces.
An old friend of mine, and also member of the aeroclub in my youth days, was fighterpilot (scored with the Knight Cross) on the eastern front on 109s. He shot down nearly 40 of them, the most going down flat spinning. The cannon was shoting slow and with bad ballistic, so you do not had to be afraid of it. They choked about shooting "flat irons" with such a low muzzle velocity, you could see them flying. The high altitude performance was poor and the 109s were there much better, so they mostly had the advantage of atacking from altitude. "Beware of the hun in the sun". He said: "Den taktischen Vorteil der besseren Höhenleistung haben wir immer genutzt."
True words spoken!
That seemed to be a very balanced assessment of the design. It is interesting that the USSR preferred the P-39 to 3 classic fighters that were workhorses that really did the heavy lifting for the Western Allies during the toughest stages of the war.
I think that well illustrates how different the air war was on the Eastern Front.
Thank you!
And the Finns loved the Brewster Buffalo!
@@TheSoundsage Well, the Buffalo was a good fighter when it first came out, but it got a lot heavier and did not get a better engine to compensate for the weight gain.
As much as the spitfire was a workhorse in the west, the complications that involved the lend lease spitfires were immense. For one, there wasn't exactly an abundance of spare parts for the spitfire in the USSR. And besides, there is always the experience factor, meaning that many German pilots had fought spitfire and most were trained to fight against them, so they knew how to fight them
Edit: I am talking about the spitfire in specific since this is the one I have more knowledge on, and I am assuming that the other 2 workhorses you mentioned were the mustang and the thunderbolt
@@toast2300 Actually I was thinking Hurricane and P-40. I was talking about the toughest period of the war. By the time the P-40, and P-39 became outnumbered by the P-47 and P-51 it was 1944 and the tide had turned. When the P-39, P-40 and Hurricane were the mainstays, the issue was arguably still in doubt.
It has always been my impression that the turbocharged version of the P-39 was canceled due to production shortages of the GE turbocharger which was also needed for the P-36. Bell was asked to build a more lightened and streamlined non-turbocharged version which was what went into production. The installation of the turbocharger as well as the cannon were what dictated the unique engine installation and the removal of something so central in the design likely had something to do with the center of gravity problems as there were major changes to the design very shortly before it went into production. Still Chuck Yeager spent significant time doing his advanced training in the P-39 and he did not have any thing bad to say about it. He was transitioned into P-51s when he went into combat though.
Hey there. Yes possibly there were various reasons for the deletion of the turbocharger, maybe I should've spent more time in that part of the video, but I felt it was getting long and boring. In the Airacobra, the centre of gravity was generally too far backwards, which means in simple terms, instability. On a conventional monoplane aircraft like the P-39, the CG is always in between the wings and its normally measured as a percentage of the chord (a line that connects the leading edge to the trailing edge of a wing). As this engine was behind the centre of gravitiy, the extra weight of a turbocharger would make the CG travel further backwards, making it even more unstable. That can also be a possibility why it was deleted. I don't know if this was the case. Thank you for your comment.
@@AllthingsWW2 it is my understanding that part of the reason for removing the turbocharger was wind tunnel testing by NACA to identify parasitic drag. One of the recommendations by NACA was to remove the turbo supercharger because the intakes and exhaust from it increase parasitic drag. One has to wonder what NACA thought was going to force air into the engine at high altitude if you don't have a turbo supercharger!
The added drag and weight of the turbo not only cancelled any advantages but meant less full could be carried and a higher wing loading would make it even more unstable than it was. Highly skilled pilots tolerated it, but it killed many an average pilot with the tumble and spin behaviour. Lots of aerodynamic and design flaws.
I like your regular format, but I like this format as well. I like the regular format for its detail, head to head comparisons, and it’s uniqueness. The “holiday” format maintains the style and feel for the most part (ie, narration, use of paintings, ace profiles, ect). In some ways it kinda of flows better, giving a more holistic impression of the aircraft. I especially liked the part with the quotes from the aces, shown alongside their pictures. I’m looking forward to your next video, whatever the format.
Thank you! This is a very helpful comment. Feedback is really important. I'll keep this in mind for my next video.
Great video! I liked the pilot's opinions at the end.
Thank you!
Very informative video on an airplane I've liked ever since building a model of it as a kid about 40 years ago.
Thank you!
I found this incredibly interesting and well researched. A big thumbs up.
Thank you!
Your work is awesome! I always learn something that I didn’t know watching your videos!! The P-39 was a badass when used to its best abilities!
Thank you! It was indeed!
Excellent! The format of this video was just fine.
Thank you!
Thank you for covering this aircraft ,looking forward to the next.
Thank you!
Yeager LOVED the P-39. Yes, it was a low altitude plane. It's poor performance vs the Zero was the poor early-war understanding (in all US types) of the proper tactics vs the Zero. By then it had a reputation. How many lives, USSAF and USN, would have been saved if they had listened to Chennault?
Excellent video my Friend! Thank You!
It's amazing the Soviet air-to-air scores, specially taking into account that there was barely any Luftwaffe in the Eastern Front after mid-43.
Keep in mind during the first one or two year chaos on the Eastern front no one cares or kept track of kills properly for Soviet pilots - recordkeeping was poor and this was not at all a priority compared to everything else going on. Soviet fighters didn't have cameras confirming kills until later in the war. Many Soviet aces have their kills greatly underestimated compared to Germany for example.
Thank you so much , you did a fantastic job on your synopsis of one of my favorites , you have a great channel , MARK Battista
Thank you Mark!
Great video keep up the good work 👍 .
Love to see a video on early war fighter
Pzl11, Polikarpov1-15
Kawasaki ki 10 .
Thanks for your endeavours.
Have a good Xmas.
Thank you! I am planning to do the Fokker D.XXI and its role in the Winter War between Finland and the Soviet Union. It should come out pretty soon. I'll add the others to the "to do" list. Thank you for you suggestions and have a great xmas!
@@AllthingsWW2 keep up the good work maybe you could do a combination video with aircraft that flew side by side in
Combat at the same time this
Might make your job a little easier
Especially when dealing with early war and late war aircraft
Once you have covered the big
10 as I call them (aircraft people can name from the war)
Take care
I read that the P-400 in US service, in the Pacific, had an extra problem. The British modification (P-400) had changed the oxygen canisters for their own type. Yet the US didn't have any, or nearly enough, of those oxygen canisters to equip their P-400s. So they were further limited to operationally lower altitudes, giving their opponents easy bounces from above.
Please do not concern yourself about the format. You have a following so I understand your desire to meet your own standards, but the video was wonderful - informative factually but with good video quality and content and great flow. Thank you so much for expanding my understanding of the P39. I look forward to more. And I think Salvador Hurtado (before me) is spot on. Low altitude, good survivability, and good armament add up to success in devoted pilots hands.
Excellent presentation, the mix of facts and personal accounts was very engaging.
Thank you!
Well said.
Great video, well documented and well explained. I wish you can make a video like second part of the P-39`s Big brother; The P-63 King Cobra. Regards
Hey there! I will certainly do the P-63. But it will be a while until I get it done. I'll probably go into the winter war (finland vs soviet union) on my next video. Then I'll take a few videos break from the eastern front. Thank you for the suggestion.
@@AllthingsWW2 Check the Finnish Air Force history site. The remark the Finns made about the P-39 was very interesting. They weren't afraid to meet any Russian fighter in a dogfight except for the "vastly superior Bell p-39".
Another flaw in the P-39D was that the 37mm gun was very prone to jam, after only 3 to 6 shots fired. The P-400 with the 20mm gun did not have that problem, and most had been sent to the Soviets, who loved them. Later models fixed the 37mm gun issue, and the Soviets loved them, too.
12:38 Not surprising. Spitfire did not suited well to poor airfields of eastern front, and above all R-R Merlin was demanding engine. It needed highly trained mechanics and quality replacement parts to keep it running. Merlin did not run well, or at all, on poor quality fuel and lubricants. Soviet standard avgas was dubious and highly variable quality. Their domestic Klimov and Mikulin engines were both extremely low stressed to overcome this. Klimov was 35 litres for 1100hp, Mikulin was whopping 47 litres for 1700hp. Airacobras Allison too needed better fuel than Soviet regular, but was an degree easier engine.
Five of the 10 highest scoring Soviet aces logged the majority of their kills in P-39s. Grigoriy Rechkalov scored 44 victories in Airacobras. Pokryshkin scored 47 of his 59 victories in P-39s, making him the highest scoring P-39 fighter pilot of any nation, and the highest scoring Allied fighter pilot using an American fighter.
I wish you went into the final version of the P-39, the P-63. When you have a great team, you can achieve some amazing things.
Excellent video, thank You!
Thank you!
Regardless of the format, your videos are well made and informative. I enjoy them; please keep going in whatever format you choose.
Thanks for the excellent presentation on a much misunderstood plane. One of my uncles was a flight instructor in P-39s and he had absolute confidence in it. He was assigned to P-47s when he went into combat and he thought the 39 was superior down low.
I've been building and flying radio control models since 1971 and the Cobra is the best flying WW2 fighter from a modelers perspective. I've had four from 36" to 80" span and all are superb. Stable and aerobatic, it's just beautifully designed for scale modelling. They make me look good compared to those flying just about any other WW2 fighter.
Also. Part of the reason the Soviets did so well with the beautiful bird was they yanked out a lot of "extra" stuff then had the time to develop tactics. Most of that seemed to be waiting at their best altitude for the Germans to come down to them and taking the hits from the first bounce. Then? The Cobras held most of the cards.
Even the Americans discovered by Guadalcanal that down low and at high speed the Cobra could outmaneuver anything the Japanese had. They did quite well if there were Wildcats or P-38s to fly top cover.
The same high altitude interceptor specification resulted in the P-38, P-39, and P-40. Quite different outcomes.
The Allison engine lack of high altitude performance on the P-39, P-40 and P-51 deserves more explanation.
The supercharger on the Allison V-1710 was intended only as a low altitude device. In the late 30's, the USAAF was hell bent in using turbochargers in all its aircraft, as a second stage charging system for good high altitude performance.
When the turbocharger was yanked from the P-39, it was left with a unmodified supercharger. Almost all other engine manufacturers, like Rolls Royce (Merlin), Dainler-Benz (DB-601) and Nakajima (Sakae), had their superchargers developed as medium to high altitude devices. Rolls Royce would even produce Merlin variants specifically to operate the best at low, medium or high altitude.
But in the US the Allison was developed focusing solely on the P-38, leaving the P-39 and P-40 with a under-developed engine. This situation would change only in 1943, when a V-1710 equipped with dual stage supercharger (a technology available years before in naval US fighters with Pratt & Whitney engines) became available. But by them it was too late, because Packard was rolling out the V-1650 for the Mustang and both the P-39 and P-40 were relegated to secondary holes.
Yes, unfortunately I didn't delve much on the engine. Normally I do that when I go through an aircraft's variants and I didn't do that in this video. I hope you still enjoyed it!
@@AllthingsWW2 Yes I did.
Allison never made a reliable high altitude engine. Even the Allisons on the P-82 in Korea were a maintenance nightmare - 33 hrs of maint for 1 hr of ops. NAA was outraged at having the Allison engines forced on them.
Another excellent video. Thanks for making them!
Thank you for watching them!
About half of the P39's Lend Leased to USSR were flown from the factory in upstate New York to the start of the Northwest Staging Route in Montana then on to Alaska where they were turned over to USSR pilots. As I understand it.
Lend-Lease program in Alaska - TH-cam
Horses for courses, as we say in English. I like the Airacobra layout; with a more powerful 2 speed, 2 stage supercharged Merlin in it, it could have been a better all rounder. Even so, it gave good service in some theatres, especially the Soviet Union.
Didn't know that proverb. In Portugal we have one with the same meaning but a different animal: "Every monkey in its own tree branch".
The P-63 King Cobra looked the same but it had the 1,800hp V12 Allison tubo used in the P-38 lightning and could fly high and over 400 mph . Odd he never mentioned it. Over 3000 were made,
The Brewster Buffalo begs to differ with the P-39 being the most controversial US fighter.
But it is surprising that the Soviets didn't show much of an interest in the P-38 and P-47, even though both are better suited for the ground attack role than the Airacobra. I do seem to recall that the Spitfires were used planes that went through a lot by the time they were handed over to the USSR, not that much of a surprise that they choose the american planes that came right off the production line instead.
Great channel btw, really like the "less known planes" theme.
I read a long time ago the reason for shipping "used" Spits was due to the British "borrowing" new US aircraft Britain was supposed to deliver to the USSR on the Murmansk Run.
Thank you! I think the Spitfires also had political reasons to be sidelined as Stalin wasn't overly happy to receive Mk V's when Britain was already using the Mk IX, but I don't really know how much of this is hearsay. But what I meant by that phrase was that the Soviets did have a choice. Now you made me want to do a video on the Brewster Buffalo! Thank you for your comment!
@@AllthingsWW2 The Buffalo was also used by the Finns so there might be another on the Winter War theme. Love your work brother, you are doing fine.
Soviets had P-47 but not a lot and they were used for air defense of Moscow and never forward deployed. I doubt if they had P-36 in any numbers. They were costly both to buy and to operate. Rather have twice as many P-39.
@@keithstudly6071 According to Hyperwar Lend Lease shipments Army Air Forces, 203 P47's were shipped to USSR. However it does not show any P63's being shipped while other sources show over 2,000. That may have had something to do with the planned invasion of China by the USSR.
I love my P-39 Cobra It's a 80 inch flying model and looks like no other warbird. It looks fast while sitting still! Boy is it fast. I use to race them in AMA events. Mine has reached speeds up to 144 mph's.
It's ironic that I lived in Buffalo NY and had no idea it was built there, same with the P-40. maybe I'll build a P- 63 King cobra.PS love the sound of them taking off in the movie Airforce.
You had a great opportunity to use IL-2 Great Battles for this video, as the P-39 is featured in the Battle of Kuban module. Hoping you decide to utilize IL-2 in the future!
Hey there. Dully noted! War Thunder and Il-2 are two great games, albeit very different ones. Where one is remarkable in fun and the amount of content, the other is in realism and storytelling. I like them both very much.
When I was a tween, about 1965, I purchased and built a tiny P-39 plastic model, 6" wingspan, because I felt sorry for it. In those days the only word in common library language is that the Airicobra was a dog. The Russian factor didn't reach English-written books till much later, when the ground attack cliche reached our shores. The P-39 looks so innocent until you notice the cannon. It warms my heart to find that many Russian pilots genuinely loved the airplane. thank you for this.
Great vid! The prototype should have had weight to simulate weapons and armor added during its evaluation. Perhaps then it would have gotten the supercharger it needed.
It is a good-looking air-craft, no doubt. You described the different philosophies between the Soviet & Western Air Forces regarding flying this plane in a most succinct & interesting manner. Good show.
Thank you!
I wonder why Bell could not just put back that second stage supercharger and so what if it caused more drag? I would love to build a 1/72 scale model kit of one in Soviet markings.
If you ever build it, send me a picture! Thanks for the comment.
@@AllthingsWW2 Your welcome . I will see what I can do.
it was a turbocharging system. The added drag and weight cancelled any benefits and meant less fuel could be carried on that little fighter.
The Spitfire Mk V was utterly useless at low level. It had a single stage single speed supercharger geared for use at high altitude. At low level the engine had to be throttled back to avoid the supercharger exceeding the allowed manifold pressure wasting much of the engine power. The Soviets liked the later Mk IX.
Yes that is true. By that remark I only meant that the Soviets did indeed have a choice.
Early, model of Airacobra was faster down low than early spits. The idea that they could build a high altitude aircraft without adequate supercharging or turbo charging is incredibly stupid. If you notice the program officer was the same guy who crashed the prototype p38. Some people think this guy was a good engineer personally I'm not impressed. The p-39 had so much potential that was compromised by removing the turbo charger. But then keep in mind it wasn't to anticipated that we would be sending the plane overseas to fight. The plane was the intended more for defense of Continental us against heavy bombers and an invading or attacking Force. This was influenced by the United States Army Air corps theory on long range bombing. Based on their testing they felt it was possible for a country to build a bomber they could reach the United States and bomb with a reasonable payload. The xb15 by Boeing was part of the experiments to prove the concept. The same could be said about the p-40 having a single stage supercharger. The range difference between the p39 and the p40 was due to the absence of fuselage fuel tank space on the p-39.
Hawker typhoons we're designed for high altitude combat the engine however, failed to provide the intended power. I believe their ideal fighting altitude was around 15000 feet. They would tool along at that altitude inviting the Luftwaffe to bounce then. As soon as I saw the luftwaffe start to come down they would turn into a the attack and give them a nasty surprise. I read this in Wing Commander by Johnny Johnston.
Not sure why I brought up the hawker typhoon. Perhaps it was an example of the best laid plans of mice and men. In any case if you keep playing within its desired operational limits and have tactics to compensate for any disadvantages the aircraft might have you can have success. An example is the typhoon another example is the F4F wildcat.
I thought the Russians received ex-RAF Battle of Britain Spitfire Mk IIs and Mk VBs, marks which had been removed from front line service upon the appearance of the new German FW-190As. And unlike the brand new factory-fresh P-39s fighters arriving with Cyrllic instruments and Russian manuals, the British had supplied surplus, used ex-RAF planes with manuals and instruments all in English. It would have been interesting if the Estonian order for MK I's back in 1939 had been permitted to go through (and possibly escaped to Finland to help in the Winter War).
Boost regulators were used even in the earliest Merlin II, so even Spit I & II had automatic boost control at low level . Perhaps you're thinking of the P-40 which had to be throttled back in a dive. The Allison -73, P-40K was the first to have auto boost control IIRC.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Not supercharger input power control, if the butterfly valve could not be opened fully below the full throttle height it does not matter if it is limited manually or automatically.
I've always been fascinated with this plane after I learned it was mid engine and the big cannon, subscribed!
I agree with you. And,as a Brit, I have to say the mk5 spitfire wasn't the best of it's kind.
Very nice presentation! We yanks remain happy that our Soviet allies used the airplane so skillfully against the enemy.
In my personal opinion .... an American built fighter "Airacobra" P-39 ... it was an unique airplane with some advantages and some disadvantages, as well ... but in general .... a pretty good one !!!!
The removal of the supercharger was a huge mistake. It doomed the aircraft in American service. I have talked with some of the American pilots who flew the P400 (which was the version built for the British and rejected and pressed into service by the U.S.) in the South Pacific and they all said its one redeeming quality was it was tough. One of the pilots I talked to said that if he had been in any other aircraft when the Zero shot him down, he would have been dead. The engine took two cannon shells that would have punched through ordinary armor plate. He managed to bailout of his craft. He also stated that it was a sitting duck to the Zero. So it was probably the most enigmatic of all of the American aircraft built. It was not as bad as the Brewster Buffalo though.
My father was Chief Supply Officer at Ladd Field during the war. As a child of immigrants, he spoke Russian, so he was in charge of the transfer of P-39s to Soviet pilots. He spoke glowingly of the Soviet pilots, saying that many of them were "just kids," but, very skilled flyers. They had flown to Fairbanks in airplanes that were in disposable condition, hopped into the P-39s, and headed back across Siberia. Once, in talking about the Lend Lease program, he said, "All we did was paint red stars on them and hand them over."
Your videos are well researched and delivered with style, you've gained another subscriber.
"A P-40 with a zero on it's tail" ... LOL!
In the interwar period - the USA looked at aircraft development and saw Europeans making fast twin-engine bombers. They scoffed and decided that making a larger and heavier bomber faster than a fighter was a fool's game, and instead they should make the enemy fighters slower by operating at high altitude. Thus, the US focused on the B-17/24/29, but the enemy still had their do-217s, He-111s and the like. In that context - speed to catch light bombers, and a heavy armament to quickly take the machine down were more important than altitude performance, because it was thought the friendly bombers could fend for themselves. As pointed out early in the video - the P-39 freed from the drag of extra air-intakes and the weight of superchargers was faster than the prototype that retained them.
The P-39 fit the requirements expected of it very well. Unfortunately - real life did not quite match the expected scenarios.
Nice video - well-balanced! Had a good laugh about swapping out the Spitfire for the P-39 seen to be a "war crime" to the British. My take is, I've never been a huge fan of the P-39, but was well-aware that Soviet pilots loved it. It had it's issues, it had it's pluses. I think you're right - you either loved it, or you hated it. Well-done!
BTW another (American!) fan of the Airacobra was one Chuck Yeager. He finished his fighter pilot training flying Airacobras and it remained one of his favorite aircraft to fly.
I visited a USAAF training center in Central Washington (Ephrata) state where P-39 training occurred. My friends bomb group also trained there (483rd). My friend was shot down in july ,1944 in a B-17G. He remained a POW until end of war.
"A P-40 with a zero on it's tail" Plane was prone to flat spins. Yeager said it wasn't all that bad.
I was actually going to add a quote by Chuck Yeager. But I didn't really understand if he was being sarcastic or not, so I decided not to include it!
@@AllthingsWW2I've actually spent time with the man. He has been my hero all my life. He did not disappoint.
Nice! I've heard he was very friendly!
Yeager was far above average.
Great video....much not know information of this aircraft, I learned much. Thank you!
Greatly enjoyed that video! Educated me and made me laugh out loud. Well done squire.
Glad you enjoyed it
It's nicely proportioned aircraft.I often imagine a number of changes could have greatly improved it.I bet if the cockpit was forward a little more the cg would have improved and would have also given the pilot incredible visibility
All I know in warthunder is to keep it fast and keep it medium height when looking to attack. No slow turning just zooming lol.
Yet another one unaware of the flaps, i guessing. Dont use autoflaps, cause they only swiching between no/combat when in fight. Manually go to landing set, and overturn the shit from almost anything, exept completely dedicated turnfighters.
Cobra is cheaty.
Hello, this is a nice video. I am from Bulgaria. I read to P-39 aircraft from in book "Sky of War" from fighter pilot A.I. Pokrishkin. You have 12 victory with P-39 in WW2.
I like this video format, subscribed!
Thank you and welcome!
Chuck Yeager trained on a p-39. He said that a certain amount of crashes were do to a control surface assembled incorrectly by a single factory worker who bolted it in backwards because he thought he knew more than the engineers who designed it. When a pilot did a certain roll the bolt would slide and lock up the control surface and ultimately crashing the plane
crashes were due to the P-39 being unstable near the stall, dreadfull roll-yaw coupling, airfoil that delayed stall recovery, extremely unacceptable light stick forces under g manouvers, etc Wright Field concluded it to be an unstable gun platform during manouvers and slow speed handling was dangerous.
You make intelligent, enjoyable and understandable documentaries sir!
hey man that was a great video, really informative and well written and narrated.
Thank you!
P-63 video on your Channel? The Russian engineers along with Bell did modifications for the Q version. Roosevelt asked rethat the P-63 not be used in combat which Stalin ignored and the King Cobra had some aspect of the same technology as the mustang in the wing.
I haven't done the P-63 yet, but it will be done soon. 👍
Wonderful report - thorough, informative.
Beautiful aircraft. Great video, very informative.
Thank you!
My uncle loved the comfort of the cockpit. He moved on to P-38s and P-51s later in the war.
Wasn't there a highly improved aircraft, with a similar mid engine & appearance. Called the P63, I believe.
The P-63 King Cobra looked the same but it had the Allison tubo and could fly high and over 400 mph . Odd he never mentioned it. Over 3000 were made,
It would be nice if you could do the video on the P-63 king Cobra.What differences there was between the P-39,airacobra & P-63 king Cobra
I read some years ago ( don't remember where) that the 39 suffered from a lack of on- going development and improvements that other planes got over the course of the war.
The p63 was basically the aircraft that the p-39 should have been in the beginning. I can't remember exactly but I think Bell actually funded most of the research, design and construction of the prototype out of their own pocket.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer that's the way it was done back in those days
@@tomhart6568 you get down to it the r&d today would bankrupt any company. Planes are so damn complex today with all the systems they have in them. At the same time they shoot themselves in the foot by not keeping it simple when possible. Don't reinvent the wheel if you already got a wheel that's my point of view.
As it was it needed a pilot who fully understood it and knew how to capitalize on its’ strengths. Had it been given more development priority, it likely would have been an excellent performer, and more widely accepted.
My favorite thing about the P-39 is the door. I'm too tall and too old to scramble into a real warbird cockpit but the door just makes it seem so much more inviting/user friendly... -- I actually went to the air force recruiter when I was a senior in high school but my height and my eyes were probably going to keep me out of ANY cockpits and then I found out I wouldn't even be eligible to _try_ until I was an officer and you couldn't be an officer w/out college and _then_ he said I could maybe do something "fun" like getting to drive around a lot while working in the motor pool for a couple years and _then_ use the GI BIll to go to college and _then_ apply for an officer program and _then_ apply to be a pilot and only _THEN_ find out for sure if my height and eyes would truly keep me grounded ...which sounded like long odds so I _declined_ to sign up.
Excellent video 📹
Without the airacobra, the USSR would have lost the war..huge numbers
I can't find the reference, but I have read that the spitfire was unpopular in soviet service due to its limited range , high maintainence requirements, and that the examples sent to the soviet union were half worn out when received.
It would be interesting to know what German fighters thought of fighting against this plane.
Messerschmitts(Bf)109, all modifications, Fw190 same all mods will be obvious answer.
Thank you for the suggestion, If I find anything good I'll add it in my upcoming Bf 109 vs Airacobra video
could outperfrm the 109 Emil up to about 15000 ft. Haven't seen any tests against the 190@@МногоХочешьНаглыйГугл
@@tomhart6568 Emil was kinda quickly outdated, and mostly became F/B in 41-42, so, no wonder.
As for 190, by russian source, "for unknown reason, they were thinking, 190 can outperform p39 vertically, but it wasn't", - (previous high altitude experience, maybe?)
And 190 known for being mediocre/bad horizontally, so..
The US aircraft with the most kills by a single pilot was the 39 (Pokrushkyn) with 59 kills. In the East with the wing guns removed for balance issues, the plane did very well.
Spitfire Mk Vs were the worst Spitfires, so I can believe the P 39 seemed a wiser choice. Requirements in an area are situational. Good video.
LOL, that's a lot of disinformation.
Looks like a tough bird to fly, but wondering if the turbo wasn't removed and the instrument fine-tuning was adopted, would it have less issues .. ?
Really enjoyed this video. A nice channel with quality content...
Best wishes, stay safe.
Thank you! Best wishes to you too!
P-39: "You too my second stage super charger away, but I still proved I could fight!"
To be honest, I often consider the P-39 to be America's Bf109. If it was given more love, I can only imagine what kind of improvements it would of saw. I mean the P51 wasn't a great fighter in it's early history as well, and surprisingly became one of the best aircraft of the war with modifications/improvements when time went on. Difference between a P-39, P-400, and later P-63 are not significant when compared to the nearly complete overhaul you see aircraft like the P51 and Bf109 go through, throughout the war. I mean they event went through massive airframe changes, something you don't see the P-39 go through.
The P-63 King Cobra looked the same but it had the 1,800hp V12 Allison tubo used in the P-38 lightning and could fly high and over 400 mph . Odd he never mentioned it. Over 3000 were made,
@@Crashed131963 I meant externally but yes. P47 and P51 saw extensive external modifications. P39 compared to the P63 it's pretty much a longer fuselage but outside of that visually nearly identical to the P39. It's sums up that the P39's biggest issue was it's powerplant.
He didn't mention that the soviets usually removed armor protective plates for the pilot and at least two of the MGs, thus lightening the aircraft. This was almost always done from what I've read, but if anyone disagrees that's okay. It's possible I'm wrong because why did he not mention this in the video?
You would have to include details how later models (particularly from Ks onwards, and especially Qs) ran into balance problems from having increased weight towards the back. The Soviets lost ace pilots from earlier variants in the later variants, before they instituted many balance and tail reinforcement changes. The tail in later models also warped in maneuvers from the increased rear balance problem. Early versions were excellent, particularly those with 20 mm cannons (D and Es). The balance and tail problem of later models was solved by the Russians, but never understood on an engineering level...
Listening to the Soviet Pilot's recommendation to, "keep the needle on the ball" on his instrument panel, I reckon that the P39 was an unstable fighter that the pilot had to learn to fly with, or else stall and fall with to one's death. Definitely not a bird that a heavy handed pilot could merely fly as an extension of her will. Harmony was required between plane and pilot to stay airborne
Exactly true. Wright Field test pilots said exactly that - it was an unstable gun platform in air combat manouvers. In US and Soviet training units, the accident rate was unacceptably high. 3x higher than the P-40 training units.
I always liked the looks . It looked racy and sexy . And who didn't love that huge 37 mm firepower ? But I think the designers failed it . Seems the Soviets were more patient with it and learned how to manage it .
Ouch, pictures of aircraft production lines - it breaks my heart to see all those precious airframes, knowing there are so few left.
Why oh why did the Army prevent Allison from developing dual two speed superchargers for the 1710. I know the Army intended Allison to use a GE turbocharger, but what a ‘what if’ scenario. Edit - interesting, AllThingsWW2’s P-63 episode indicate that its 1710 had a two-stage supercharger.
Lacking a turbo it was not meant for high altitude interceptor. With the 37 mm gun and mid engine it could have been a formidable ground attack plane but OH WELL.
Not a fighter but the 37mm cannon in the propeller hub was devastating for ground attack. Could take a lot of battle damage and bring its driver home. All in all a very good plane.