On 2012-06-09 13:23 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-06-09 09:23:01 -0700, Alan Browne
said:
On 2012-06-09 12:05 , Savageduck wrote:
The P-39 was the Bell AiraCobra. They last provided some service for the
USAAF in combat on Guadalcanal & New Guinea in 1942. A truly nasty
aircraft we managed to dump on the Russians via Lend Lease. For some
perverse reason they seemed to like them. Most of those we kept were
used as target tugs or "Flying Pinball Machines".
http://educationviews.org/wp-content...012/04/P39.jpg
You're overstating its bad rep.
Part of the Guadalcanal problem where the P-39 is concerned was that
they were delivered with different oxygen charging equipment than the
Navy (Marines) aircraft. So the Marines could not supply oxygen to
the P-39's and there was no Army Air Force support to do it either.
(The P-39 was designed as a high altitude fighter - w/o O2 that was a
bit hard...) It fired IIRC a 20mm canon through the center of the
propeller hub - reputedly making it very easy to aim canon fire.
The P-39 never worked as a high altitude interceptor, not because of a
lack of pilot O2, but because of a lack of a turbosupercharger which was
The lack of O2 was certainly an issue on the 'canal and why the Army
used it (principally) for ground support.
added to the P-63 Kingcobra. High altitude performance was abysmal. The
center line hub cannon was a 37mm, not a 20mm. The drive shaft ran
37mm - all the better for ground support.
between the pilot's legs and it had a tendency to snaproll off the
ground. That killed quite a few US & Russian flyers. My understanding
and prejudice with regard to the P-38, comes from my father's first hand
experience.
You mean the P-39. I had never read an account about a snap roll after
take off. And it doesn't make sense, a snap roll requires a high rate
of incidence angle change stall and hard rudder. (A 'spin' along the
flight axis).
I'd say it was a torque roll instead - the wheels in contact with the
ground 'hold' the torque but on liftoff the aircraft rolls opposite prop
rotation. If the pilot is not anticipating it he might not correct
quickly enough.
(Also, since on TO with a propped aircraft the rudder is held to the
right (for right turning props) on rotation to counter asymmetric thrust
when the nose is raised relative to the airflow. This would be counter
to the toque roll and not contribute to a "snap roll" - so if the pilot
did not anticipate the need for rudder on nose up rotation it would
'add' to the torque roll tendency).
Other aircraft (the Hawker Tempest and Sea Fury come to mind) were also
very likely to roll on takeoff due to enormous torque unloading from the
wheels).
My father flew the P-39 in 1942 and briefly flew a P-63 in 1944. He also
flew P-40's, P-47's, & P-51D's but his favorite fighter was the P-38L.
He flew in two tours with the 49th Fighter Group, 9th Fighter Squadron,
from New Guinea, through Leyte and Okinawa, and was among the first
tactical units in Japan before the surrender to fly escort for the
Japanese surrender negotiators.
Here he is in a P-47D (1943) and P-38L (1944) in New Guinea.
http://db.tt/xVMqhUIt
The 'duck revealed!
http://db.tt/f4P4s6pZ
Great memento.
Despite the oxygen issue the Army pilots used the P-39 to good effect
in ground support of Marines and Army grunts on the 'canal. (They
also fought air to air but nearer the island and at low alt). This
free'd up the Marine pilots for patrols and air defense.
Fortunately, on Guadalcanal the ground attack role suited the P-39, as
they had to do the best they could, along with some very tired F4F
Wildcat's, until the 5th AF got P-38's into Henderson Field.
The Russians also used the P-39 (and P-63) in a ground support role.
It was not perverse at all. The Russians put them to the best use
possible along side their own aircraft.
It was perverse in that the USAAF never got the P-39 to meet initial
expectations, but the Russians certainly wrung the best out of it, but
never at altitude.
That's because (and your father would attest to it) that the US Army
would tell pilots to use the aircraft for the purpose for which it was
bought (note: the Navy were more insane in this sense but the Army was
not immune). Russians don't care about why an airplane was designed
only about what was needed and what worked.
That's a bit snide and cynical wrt the US military at the time - but a
large grain of truth is there.
The Russians only got a few of the P-63s. It was the P-63 which ended
it's life as the notorious "Flying Pinball Machine" in USAAF hands.
Interesting.
--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.