I always think the p39 is fascinating plane due to the amount of myths surrounding it and the differences in reputation between the Soviets and Americans. It really shows how much the use of an aircraft can change its performance. I would love another video about the p39.

@kyle857

2 жыл бұрын

P39 also might have been loved in the Eastern front. It would have shredded German attack aircraft and medium bombers.

@colinsdad1

2 жыл бұрын

I second that, and, would like to ask for some stories about them at Guadalcanal. I'm fascinated by the amount of firepower endemic in that plane's design. Even one well aimed strafing pass must have been brutal. Just think of the 37mm cannon with anti-personnel rounds (i.e. Grapeshot- which killed MANY Japanese on that Island) at close range, with the .50 caliber and .30 AP rounds firing at their respective ranges. Makes me think of what came after- everything from 75mm, to multiple front firing.50 calibers to even the crazy Germans mounting a PAK40 to some ground attack aircraft.

@GreggGermain

2 жыл бұрын

@@colinsdad1 I had heard that the P-400's at Guadalcanal had no Oxygen systems and were limited to low altitude for that reason as well as poor high altitude performance.

@Pokri-eg9ud

2 жыл бұрын

The second highest scoring ace of the Soviet Union, Aleksander Pokrishkyn with 54 confirmed kills was very successful with the P-39 over the Kuban in 1943. In his book he said that the firepower and having good radios where the best things about the plane while being good enough at low to mid altitudes in acceleration, climb and top speed,also the capability of using drop tanks was very appreciated by expert pilots because it allowed very long range free hunts over the black sea. Other high scoring Soviet aces also flew the 39 and it was well liked. They changed their cobras for La5s in 1944.

@danweyant707

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. Please.

As a kid, I was gifted an encyclopedia about airplanes. The P-39 was one of the aircraft that always stood out. Special place in my heart.

@endokrin7897

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for your service

My late father would have thoroughly enjoyed this excellent presentation. He was a P-39 pilot. He also flew P-38’s.

@MyRCJourney

2 жыл бұрын

Wow! Very cool history! I've always loved the P-39, and of course, the P-38 is legendary! What were his thoughts on flying the P-39?

@billallen4793

2 жыл бұрын

@@MyRCJourney yes 👆 this!...from Wyoming USA 🇺🇸 🤠

@bluesteel48

2 жыл бұрын

@@MyRCJourney I was just a kid when he and some of his Army Air Corps. buddies would talk about this stuff. A few things I recall, they complained about the long range of the P-38 because it made for a long tiring day but liked the safety of two engines. Never talked much about the P-39. We built a model kit of a P-39 together. One of the first models he helped me build.

@DavidRLentz

2 жыл бұрын

I very much wish we could have learnt of your father's comparison and contrast of the Bell P-39 "Aracobra" USAAC Fighter and the Lockheed P-38 "Lightning" USAAF Twin-Engine Fighter.

@danepetersen9879

8 ай бұрын

​@@DavidRLentzagreed

I just love how the Airacobra looks. Such a beautiful machine. I'd really like to hear more about her.

@JohnDoe-ff2fc

2 жыл бұрын

Almost elegant, especially when compared to the P-47.

@kainhall

2 жыл бұрын

@@JohnDoe-ff2fc yet the P-47 is beautiful in its own way......... like the A-10 . but ya.... the p-39is a Rolls Royce the p-47 is a brick.......all function, little form (which is beautiful in its own way)

@JohnDoe-ff2fc

2 жыл бұрын

@@kainhall 2 lovely, chunky brick sh*t houses that also got/get the job done.

@kamata93

Жыл бұрын

P63 is even better looking!

@JohnDoe-ff2fc

Жыл бұрын

@@kainhall You are so right. I love the Warthog's look "Only a mother could like" lol). Same with the Jug

Great job! Thank you, Greg. The first unit in Soviet Air Force to fly Aircobras was 298 Fighter regiment. That were P-39K and P-39D-2. The regiment's planes (mostly I-16) were completely destroyed in the early months of the war. On October 20, 1942 pilots of the regiment arrived at Adjikabul (Azerbaidjan) to study P-39 got via Iran. The study began from learning the construction of non-flying P-39D-2. On January 5, 1943 first three P-39D-2 arrived and on January 10 the flights began. The were no accidents during the study. By January 26 the regiment got all the planes. It was February 3, 1943 when the regiment left for the war front. It had 32 planes: 3 squadrons with 10 planes each, plus 2 planes in HQ. 11 - P-39K (37mm cannon) these planes took heads of regiment, squadrons, etc; 21 - P-39D-2 (20 mm cannon) - for ordinary pilots. Some sources say there were 33 planes (11+22). By February 16 the regiment arrived at Kuban and became a part of 219 Bombing division. Its main purpose was escorting A-20 “Bostons” of 244 and 277 Bombing regiments. The regiment flew for hunting as well and by early March 1943 shot 5 Ju-52. In March the regiment made 417 operational flights (567 flying hours), shot 24 planes (10 - Me-109, 2 - FW-189, 1 - Ju-88, 5 - Ju-52) in air and 5 Ju-52 on the ground. Lost 9 planes (7 in combat, 2-non combat loss), 4 pilots killed. During April 1943 the regiment made 346 operational flights (430 hours), shot 50 planes (40 - Me-109). Lost 4 planes, 1 - MIA, 6 planes damaged, 1 - lost during transfer flight. The unit got new planes: 11 - P-39L, 2 - P39D-2. Quote from that time report: “Air fights analysis shows, that Aircobra is equal to Me-109 in horizontal and vertical maneuver. Turning radius is smaller, height gain in combat turn is bigger.” In May the regiment made 514 operational flights, including: 14 - bombing escort, 54 - covering of troops, 2 - “clearing” the air before attack, 5 - against bombing raids, 2 - reconnaissance. Conducted 39 air fights, shot 40 fighters and 27 bombers. Lost 6 planes (5 - shot, 1 - MIA), 2 pilots killed. On May 24, 1943 two pilots of the regiment got the highest military award (Hero of the Soviet Union): Vladimir Seminishin - 8 personal and 7 in-group shots, Vasily Drigin - 12 personal and 5 in-group shots. End of part 1.

@Swimfinz

2 жыл бұрын

Great report, thank you!

@richardmusante225

2 жыл бұрын

👆💪😊

@rdallas81

Жыл бұрын

Awsome.

@williammorris584

Жыл бұрын

Thanks, Mr Sokolov.

@rdallas81

Жыл бұрын

@@williammorris584 Yessir!

It also has to be remembered that it was P-39s along with F4Fs that initially held back the air assaults by the Japanese on Guadalcanal. Good pilot training probably also contributed to their success, but if the planes were crappy I doubt they would have lasted as long as they did.

@SoloRenegade

2 жыл бұрын

And many pilots later admitted they were unfairly harsh on the P-39. I attribute this to the US fighting spirit and the desire of American pilots to be out for blood following Pearl Harbor. They wanted to be aggressive and attack hard. But the P-39 was not such a fighter. They needed to be patient, set themselves up in favorable positions and strike when the opportunity presented. Short range makes this difficult as well. So the P-39 early on is a thinking pilot's aircraft. Late in teh war, it's performance had been boosted to beat the Zero in pretty much every way other than maneuverability and range.

@davidelliott5843

2 жыл бұрын

​@@SoloRenegade P47 and P38 effectively proved that manoeuvrability was far less important than speed and fire-power.

@SoloRenegade

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidelliott5843 Absolutely, but this point was actually proven even before that with the Hawker Hart bomber.

@johngregory4801

2 жыл бұрын

If the P-39 and F4F had been as crappy as the rep given them, they wouldn't have held anything back - witness the "inspiring" record of the Brewster Buffalo' in the Pacific Theater.

@markgranger9150

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidelliott5843 Tactics, using your aircraft's abilities or the other guys weakness. Speed can enable you to pick and choose when and where you fight or not fight. The Japanese went all in with the A6M Zero and if you were looking to the last war for insight on what a fighter plane should do manoeuvrability would top the list. The best ability is survivability the more combat you experience the better you become. The Russians loved the P-39 because it had an enclosed cockpit and more than 2 guns.

There was some wieght savings built in to the mid engine design. Mainly that the engine sat on webbing directly attached to the wing spars, eliminating the typical steel cantilever engine mounting frame. The "Aleutian Zero" was tested against the P39. The 39 could out run, out accelerate, out climb, and even to an extent out turn the Zero at LOW ALTITUDE. However, the power loss was so severe with increasing altitude the the 39 became unstable at only 12,000 feet.

@Surestick88

2 жыл бұрын

How does loss of power cause instability?

@breckhollis1089

2 жыл бұрын

@@Surestick88 Because the maximum air speed and the stall speed start to converge.

@-Zevin-

2 жыл бұрын

Great points, this highlights why the P-39 was so fantastic on the eastern front, considering the very low altitude offensive nature of Soviet tactics. It's worth brining up too that in the pacific the Japanese had a massive advantage in pilot quality during the beginning of the war. Japan had some of the most disciplined and well trained pilots on earth, yet one massive disadvantage of the Japanese system was their ability to train and create new pilots of such quality was incredibly low. While the United States was able to both manufacture machines and pilots at a astonishingly higher rate. As the elite Japanese pilots were lost to attrition Japan was left with almost no capability to replace them, along with a much lower industrial output. Combine this with the Japanese practice of keeping their best pilots in combat continuously rather than pulling them back home to train new recruits. I just point this out as well, because I think it is often missed when talking about high American air losses at the beginning of the war in the pacific, It wasn't just good Japanese machines at the start of the war, we also have to consider the quality of the men flying them as to why we took such heavy losses early on. Saburo Sakai's book "Samurai!" goes into fantastic detail on this issue, and I highly recommend any air combat enthusiast's read it.

@breckhollis1089

2 жыл бұрын

Yup, I read that book. Sakai was an ordinary sailor when he was recruited for pilot training. Contrast that with the US where the great majority of pilots were college grads.

@-Zevin-

2 жыл бұрын

@@breckhollis1089 Yet that is completely irrelevant compared to the level of training and discipline Japanese pilots received compared to American pilots. The problem remained for Japan that their graduating classes were incredibly small, and they had no ability to maintain such a elite level of training as the war progressed and the well trained pilots started to die off, so what Japan ended up with was a tiny elite core that survived, and allot of incredibly poorly trained recruits, rushed to the frontline, and later sent as Kamikazes too. The United States on the other hand was more able to produce decently trained but not elite pilots at a much much higher rate, this was still a major advantage. Combine that much larger ability to produce pilots, with a much larger ability to manufacture airframes and you have a devastating combination; where late war the US dominated the Japanese in air combat with more modern aircraft, more competent pilots, and greater numbers. Interestingly the Japanese actually had very advanced modern aircraft they invented that kept pace with the most advanced American aircraft of the time too, but they had little to no ability to produce them at scale.

Thank you, Greg, for doing a more in-depth dive into the P-39 design, it's strengths and weaknesses. As a career aero engineer, I have been standing on the sidelines watching so many poorly thought out comments and criticizms of the design and hoping that someone would step forward with a well researched and comprehensive article. In the trade, we often hear the term, "synergy". The P-39 to me is a clever example of synergistic thinking, where one change results in many benefits. The P-39 is a really clever combination of features that resulted in a compact, lightweight, powerful machine. Unfortunately, it also resulted in a design that had very little internal volume for fuel or for turbocharger plumbing or cooling. The lack of space for a turbocharger was quickly recognized and that feature deleted. Unfortunately, that change made the airplane into a low altitude fighter only. The lack of internal volume for fuel was a tougher nut to crack. The very cleverness of the design packaged other necessary components too close together and certainly consumed most of the space near the center of gravity. In the end, the low fuel capacity limited the range and lack of a high altitude engine limited the operational altitude. So you wound up with an airplane with a narrow operating envelope. Regarding the stall/spin characteristics, I don't have much to offer. Early in my working career I rubbed shoulders with many WWII vets who had flown P-39's. Most of those with whom I discussed the airplane viewed it as a fun and feisty little machine that was entirely useless in a combat role. A great little sport flyer.

@briancavanagh7048

2 жыл бұрын

The synergy was taken to far and making too compact of a fuselage and not providing enough volume at the CG. By increasing the length of the fuselage even minimally a fuel cell could have been placed between the pilot and the front of the engine, very near the CG. The P39 fuselage length was 30’2” and the near contemporary P40 was longer at 31’ 8.5”. Hindsight is very clearly 120%.

@JoeOvercoat

2 жыл бұрын

Tigershark said, “Hold my beer…”

@kirbyculp3449

2 жыл бұрын

There is an YT interview of an IJN/IJA pilot. The interviewer asked the pilot about the Zero, clearly expecting a positive answer. The pilot dismissed the Zero as an acrobatic toy. It is implied in the vid that coupling big engines with big guns is the way to go.

@dos_gringos9853

2 жыл бұрын

Except when you call someone “synergistic” you would expect it to be a well balanced aircraft, performance wise, and it’s not. It’s a very short range, very low altitude fighter that didn’t really fit into the mission set it needed too for the US.

@laughingdaffodils5450

2 жыл бұрын

@@dos_gringos9853 It came out completely unsuited for its intended role, true. However it was quite well balanced when it was deployed in the right role. The Soviets deployed them as low altitude interceptors and loved them.

Non combat accidents in the Army Air Force were significant, almost half of all losses. My dad survived the collision B 17 with a B24 training over Lavenham England in ‘44. Out of 21 crew 11 lived. The aircraft were of course destroyed. In the fourties’ flying was much more dangerous than today, even when you weren’t being shot at!

@finaloption...

2 жыл бұрын

I'm only here because my father survived a mid-air collision over the Tinian islands while returning from a mission in his Lockeed Ventura. A Canadian pilot in his P-38 was escorting them back to the airfield and was hotdogging by doing rolls over the top of my dad's plane and caught the wingtip. Dad's plane limped in without hydraulics or controls on the right side and leaking fuel. The P-38 went down and in the water and the former pilot was rescued. I still have all the photos of the damage and his time spent in the service. R.I.P. Dad. I miss you.

@richardschaffer5588

2 жыл бұрын

@@finaloption... My dad was amazed by the recklessness of the fighter pilots. But what do you expect from a bunch of kids with 2000 horsepower who risk their lives on every sortie?

@theworldwariioldtimeradioc8676

2 жыл бұрын

True that.

@jharris0341

2 жыл бұрын

Respect to your father.

@robertpayne2717

2 жыл бұрын

My dad was a clerk working directly for the base commander at Waycross Ga. And he related to me that they lost many planes P-40s etc in the Okefennokie Swamp due to pilot error.

Greg, great video as always. I spent over 3,000 hours in modern Navy Fighter Jets / Training Jets and would agree with your comment about G-Loading. Modern Jet cockpits are well in front of CG, and allow pilots to pull upwards of 7 to 9 G's (depending upon the aircraft). G onset is a concern, but given modern training and assistance from G-suits, it is easily combated. Sustained G is generally the more challenging of the two...G-suits / training help, but one's physical fitness is more important. Our Demonstration teams don't use G-suits while flying the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds, relying purely on technique and physical fitness...the more important of the two components of fighting G. Bottom Line: I don't think the Mid-Engine design near the CG for the P-39 made a huge difference in that era for G-Onset for the crews. However, it probably made it feel more lighter and responsive on the controls....but I've never flown it nor read any books on pilots who have.

15:05, it was called the 'Townend Ring' not the TownSend Ring, it was named after its inventor, Dr Hubert Townend of the British National Physical Laboratory. Also, the spelling of the aerobatic manoeuvre is 'Lomcovák', often anglicised to Lomcovak and sometimes incorrectly spelled 'Lomcevak'. It was a term coined by the mechanic of famous Czech aerobatic pilot, Ladislav Bezák.

@moss8448

2 жыл бұрын

thank you Spock

@jessfrankel5212

2 жыл бұрын

@@moss8448 🖖

@williamhawkins7222

4 ай бұрын

More like Higgins from Magnum pi

@rickinmi

2 ай бұрын

​@@williamhawkins7222 she's cute!

If anyone is watching this video who hasn't read Bob Hoover's autobiography you're really missing out. Great video explaining an often misunderstood aircraft. Thanks Greg!

The shaft drive experience must have been useful for Bell's subsequent helicopter building career.

@stewpacalypse7104

2 жыл бұрын

Excellent point.

@chriscur79

Жыл бұрын

Spectacular observation.

@endokrin7897

Жыл бұрын

Amazing remark.

@ionizedbeam8089

9 ай бұрын

@@stewpacalypse7104astute comment.

@phlodel

8 ай бұрын

I'd have never thought about that. Maybe the P-39 saved some early helicopter pilots' lives.

What I like best about your videos are the research and references to original sources and documents, and of course your analyses. So many others will just rehash the commonly already known knowledge and myths…. but with your work we can be sure we are getting the facts…. great work…!

I first saw a Lumcovak (sp?) in 1966 at the Abbotsford Airshow and was just amazed. I thought he was going to crash until everyone applauded. It's the kind of amazement where your second response - once you realize the pilot is in control of it - is just to laugh out loud because it's so crazy. Good video.

@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

2 жыл бұрын

The first time I saw one, I found myself asking what the heck just happened. (this was way back before the internet, so the only way to see one was live)

Fascinating dissection. Sounds silly to say, but every since I got to play an Airacobra in a simulator game as a kid its always been my third favorite aircraft of the era. Seeing it and my favorite aircraft of the era, the P-63F together in person really helped

@rich7787

2 жыл бұрын

And you won’t tell us what’s number two? Way to leave me hanging

@StarlightSocialist

2 жыл бұрын

Pshhh, it's not silly at all. Playing games when you're young is integral to personality development and picking favorites is a natural part of that. If you think that's silly then we're comrades in arms. My favorite plane is the A-10 and one of the computer games I play is Kerbal Space Program. It's a physics simulation for doing rocket science but you can build space planes too and there's a gazillion mods made by fans of the game. One of the craft I've built is an A-10 derivative but only in the loosest sense. All the basics are right but all the details are wrong. Dry mass is 30 some odd metric tons, main engines are a pair of 2.5 meter diameter open cycle air breathing nuclear thermal rockets. (Intake air, compress it, heat it in a nuclear reactor, expand it to drive a turbine, generate thrust). The engines alone are six tons a piece, which shifts the center of mass aft. I had to shift the wings aft and extend the forward fuselage a bit to keep it's flight characteristics stable. The plane looks like the offspring of an A-10 warthog and a Su-25 frogfoot.

@-Zevin-

2 жыл бұрын

@@StarlightSocialist If you haven't already, you should really try the A-10C in DCS, It's actually one aircraft I haven't learned in DCS yet because it seems so complex, but if you really love the A-10 it may be worth your time to learn. I have always had a soft spot for the warthog too, as I grew up right near the Air national guard base in Battle Creek Michigan, saw A-10s flying over my childhood home all the time. I quite miss seeing it.

10:24 I remember reading somewhere that there was a shortage on the metals used in turbo production and that the army aircorps gave priority for this metal to the bombers.

@daslynnter9841

2 жыл бұрын

That doesnt make sense, turbos dont use any special metals, and they were installed in p47s and p38s. They mightve not been able to produce as many due to the complicated manufacturing, but id still be doubtful. Much more likely the turbo and plumbing for coolant/oil/airflow took up too much space. The p39 was a really tiny aircraft. Look at the p38, the turbo super chargers practically take up each boom, and the p47 was famously massive.

@jonskowitz

2 жыл бұрын

@@daslynnter9841 exactly! The XP39 turbo had overheating issues and the XP40 turbo caused visibility issues. There wasn't time to sort these out so they were simply deleted

When I was a kid...like so many kids...I was deeply into model airplanes. I had pretty much every model available scattered around my room. I never fell in love with the Airacobra...but I was fascinated by it. For the longest time, I was pretty sure that it never really existed in real life. It was just too out there...like a science fiction space ship. I'm still fascinated by it...but now, I kinda do love it, for its space ship looks and its 'out of the box thinking' design. Thanks for sharing this.

Hi Greg, LOVED this presentation on the P-39. I've had a sentimental place in my heart for the P-39 since I was a kid. It came from the Doubleday War Planes books (5 inch x 5.25 inch size) of the early 1960's, the "Fighters 4" edition. What was the first plane discussed? The P-39! That little book sparked my imagination about WWII fighter planes, a love I have to this day. I even fly an RC version of the P-39 (1.2 meter wingspan) and it flies excellent! I hope you do another P-39 presentation. I always thought that the P-39 was just caught in an "in-between" moment in aviation development and could have been quite an excellent plane. I still love the looks of it. Thanks for all your work in bringing these WWII planes to life with their development stories. Fascinating stuff. I've loved the P-38 and P-47 articles in particular. They are also favorite planes of mine. Best of luck to you and your channel!

I can’t wait for the second part to this. I’d love a deep dive into the Soviet reports of the P-39 in action.

@tomhart6568

Жыл бұрын

Greg just put out a video (August '22) going over the US vs Russian use and experience with the P-39 as well as a lot of performance facts about the plane. I think a lot of you haters will be surprised.

Can’t wait for the next one. I know you work full time but every month I’m dying for another video. I just love the way you engage a topic so thoroughly!

@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

Жыл бұрын

Thanks John, I am working on it right now.

The end of the story could have included "the Airacobra shot down more enemy aircraft than any other allied fighter", about 5200 according to the Soviet pilots. Half of their top aces flew P-39s and they operated them at full throttle instead of the lower recommended settings. The P-39 flew the entire war with the same basic engine while most of the other fighters got huge increases in horsepower. A 2000hp Cobra would have whipped them all, as it did in the 1945 national air races. Great job Greg as you always do. This is the best Airacobra review I have seen.

@jaym8027

2 жыл бұрын

By now, its a given that pretty much everyone involved in aerial combat overclaimed kills. When one adds the propensity of fighter pilots to overclaim (Note that I'm not stating that overclaiming is intentional) to the Soviet tendency to wildly exaggerate victories and minimize losses, I'm very skeptical of any numbers coming from Soviet sources. I'd love to see some research done on claimed kills versus acknowledged German losses on the Eastern Front along the lines of what Eric Bergerud did in Fire in the Sky, his book on aerial warfare in the Southwest Pacific during World War 2.

@barrettjet

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaym8027 True, they and we all overclaimed so go analyze it. The Soviets only allowed claims that were verified by obtaining the data plate of the downed aircraft during the first year of the war but most of the kills were over enemy territory. Then they allowed a claim if it was verified by the data plate or the wingman's verification and in the later years many of these were over their territory. You can believe it or not. There are several good books written by the Russian Aces. About two thirds of the kills were Bf-109 and Fw-190's. The Cobra was outstanding below 15,000 ft and that is where the combat was. They flew combat at full throttle and the engines only lasted about 20 hours but that was 20 missions. The Russian pilots preferred the Cobra because it had good fire power, a heated cockpit and a radio that worked. The Russian built planes were primitive. Alexander Pokryshkin, the top P-39 Ace refused to give up his P-39 for the latest La-7.

@jaym8027

2 жыл бұрын

@@barrettjet The Soviets were allied with the Germans for the first year of the war; for the first 22 months, actually. During that time they'd have been shooting down Finnish planes, mostly. Or being shot down by them, more likely. I've had a poke around as far as Soviet aerial victory claims, and it seems someone has done some analysis on those figures. Christer Bergstrom has written a series of books on the air war in the east. They seem very well researched. You can look for reviews and descriptions online if you like. In his "Kursk- The Air Battle: July, 1943" he describes the Soviets as claiming to have shot down 487 German aircraft of Fliegerkorps VIII as against German recorded losses of 41. The Soviets claimed 391 against Luftflotte 6 as compared to German records showing 39. That's a ten-to-one claim vs actual, at least. In Bergstrom's volume on the air war around Stalingrad, published in 2007, he describes an action in June of 1942 in which the Soviets claim to have shot down nine German aircraft as against German records showing no aircraft losses on the day in question. One of the factories that the Soviets moved behind the Urals in response to Barbarossa must have been used to manufacture German aircraft data plates if that's what they were using to confirm aerial victories. Again, I acknowledge that everyone overclaimed, but the Soviets look to have made it official policy. Can't say I'm surprised.

My Dad flew 39's and 400's in the South Pacific . He said the plane saved his life many times! It had many firsts for planes in WW 11. He said it would fall out of the sky better than any other plane but would not go to altitude very fast.

@jharris0341

2 жыл бұрын

Respect to your father.

Some of the best and infrequently seen photos of WWII aircraft are in your videos. Great job Greg!!

@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Peter, I do try hard to use stuff that's not seen in every other video on the subject.

@pborgia1

2 жыл бұрын

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The photos are not only rarely seen, most of them are of excellent quality and clarity.

I read in Chuck Yeager’s autobio that he really liked the P-38. Great vid!

@crazypetec-130fe7

2 жыл бұрын

IIRC, he wrote that he would have happily gone to war in the P-39.

@fafner1

2 жыл бұрын

@@crazypetec-130fe7 Also that when he found himself sitting with Russian pilots at a dinner in the 1950's, they had nothing in common so they talked about how much they liked the P-39.

I've come to know so much more about warbirds from your content that I ended up making a playlist of the audio from your vids to listen to as I go about my day(and a whole different playlist for the P47 which is an audiobook in itself😁)

I always loved the Airacobra's clean lines.

To those of us who are fascinated by this subject matter, your videos are always a treat. You can learn so much.

Great vid Greg as usual I learned a lot from it and I consider myself a WWII aviation enthusiast.

@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Mike.

Another great video, Greg! Just wonderful information...largely unknown information. Great insights and amazing display of data. Thanks so much for taking the time and effort to produce these excellent videos. i hope you will follow up with more on the P39. Of course, i hope you just make lots of videos on whatever suits your fancy! Thanks Greg.

@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Carl, I'm glad you liked it.

@svdlaan

2 жыл бұрын

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Hi Greg! This might interest you (if you haven't got it already): kzread.info/dash/bejne/c46Nwbh_hqybppM.html Greetings from Holland!

I once had the opportunity at an airshow to stand directly in front of a P-39 during the start up and warm up period. The amount of shaking (or wobble) back and forth on that long spindly front landing gear was shocking to see and for a few seconds caused fear that a catastrophe was imminent. Ever since then, that's about the only feature of the airplane that gives me pause to wonder about how that worked out in service, especially on less than great surfaces. Thanks for another great video, Greg. I've noticed that you are referenced very favorably by commenters on other aviation channels, so good on ya!

@kenneth9874

Жыл бұрын

It must have worked pretty well or they wouldn't have been suitable for the ussr,I imagine that the front line airfields were pretty rough

@danepetersen9879

8 ай бұрын

Probably why the awful field of vision contributed to it crashing into a b17 at an airshow this year. Hindsight is 2020

@tomfolkes4997

8 ай бұрын

@@danepetersen9879 In that terrible accident, the P-39 was in a left banking turn, as were all the planes that were following the airshow round robin path. The B-17 was also in that pattern, but a little to the starboard of the P-39's path, resulting in the B-17 being in a blind spot for the banking P-39 pilot. It would have been a blind spot for any single engine fighter of that era. In the video, the B-17 apparently leveled off from its banking turn, which could have put it out of the path of the oncoming P-39 except for the speed and timing of the fighter's approach. Had someone in the B-17 seen the imminent threat, the pilot could have taken some evasive action, but if that happened, it was not in time to avoid the collision. It was a sad loss all the way around, both in lives and aircraft.

@tomfolkes4997

8 ай бұрын

@@kenneth9874 Yes, indeed, it worked well for the Soviets. Standing there watching the wobble from a lay person's viewpoint, however, made it look pretty fragile.

This was great! I would absolutely love it if you were to do another vid on the P-39. I'm also very hopeful you'll cover the P-63 at some time too. There was just something so innovative about this plane design that inspires my "Inner Geek". Thanks again, Mo-

I just love these videos! As a professional corporate/charter pilot and absolute aviation nut, these are just awesome! Thank you for sharing!

Some historians have an opinion and find sources to support it, ignoring dissenting sources. Some historians look at all the different sources, and base their opinion on the whole of their research. And some historians go out of their way to explain the situation around the publication of those sources, and why they say what they do. That's Greg.

Wow. Thanks Greg. You cleared up quite a few of the misconceptions I had about this aircraft. I saw a P 39 up close at an Air Museum and I could not believe how small it was. Thanks so much for the great content.

This is my favorite aviation content ! Thank you greetings I’m Greg 🙏🏻

Absolutely love the idea of mid engine prop fighters. Very cool.

Thanks, Greg. I've been a fan of the P-39 for a long while, nice to see it getting some attention.

Would love a king cobra video. This is such an interesting aircraft.

I want to thank you for offering such interesting information on these wonderful aircraft… I’m no pilot, engineer, nor a designer. Just a retired soldier that has always loved world war 2 History… this adds a whole new level of understanding to the time period. Along with my History degree, and study of Socio-Economic problems of the period, it surely adds more “color” to the complete picture. Your thoroughness is to be commended. 🇺🇸

As always, a brilliant video. So full of detail but told in a way that even us non-engineers can easily follow. Thank you Greg.

As an undergrad in aerospace engineering, your channel is a national treasure, thank you for your service :)

Love the P-39. Thanks for this great video.

It would be awesome to have an analysis of the Soviet experience. They loved the plane and it was highly successful

@DavidSmith-ss1cg

2 жыл бұрын

Since the Soviets didn't have far to fly to meet their German adversaries, the fuel limitations weren't an issue; and besides the excellent flying characteristics(that famed British pilot Eric "Winkle" Brown liked as well), the Soviets loved, loved, LOVED the 37mm cannon, and often used the plane exclusively for tank-busting.

@jonse5a

2 жыл бұрын

They also tended to end up in lower altitude engagements.

@Anlushac11

2 жыл бұрын

If you look online you can probably find a copy of a book titled "Attack Of The Airacobra's". It chronicles the P-39 in Soviet service, I think from a Soviet author.

@Anlushac11

2 жыл бұрын

@@DavidSmith-ss1cg That is a common myth that the P-39 was used for tank busting. The 37mm cannon was low velocity and the US never shipped 37mm armor piercing shells. They were shipped almost exclusively HE rounds. 37mm HE is nasty against soft targets, but it wont do much to tanks. Soviet P-39 ace Alexander Pokryshkin specifically mentions in his memoirs a Soviet Army tank regiment commander asking Pokryshkins P-39's to attack the German tanks and Pokryshkin telling him all we have is HE which wont hurt them. The P-39 played every role from air superiority to ground attack and flak suppression. The Soviets stripped the wing guns out and most of the armor, leaving just the 20mm or 37mm nose cannon and the 2 x .50cal in the nose. the Soviets also stripped the British oxygen system out of the ex-British P-39's since it was not compatible with anything else. The Soviets then added 500lbs ballast to the nose to "fix" the center of gravity issue when low on fuel and ammo.

@Birdy890

2 жыл бұрын

@@Anlushac11 500lbs is a lot of weight for just dead weight. I don't get why people liked the P39 if it can't even fly in a straight line without that modification.

Excellent. Thank you for putting this excellent video together. The P-39 has always fascinated me. I"m sure I'm not alone in saying I'd very much like to see a part 2 at some point, with more of discussion of how and why the turbo-supercharger was not used in the production aircraft.

Love the channel Greg you always produce some of the best content online!

Hey Greg I have been a huge fan for a couple of years. Just wanna say thanks for these videos. It has been a while since I checked your channel so gonna binge watch a ton of videos

My favourite WW2 plane (apart from the doors). Appreciate the effort explaining why it wasn't going to achieve its full potential.

Interesting video, as always. The P-39 is one of the fighters that I'm very curious about, due, of course, its unusual engine configuration. You took lots of questions I had about it. And about the Soviet 'Cobras, well, you gave the appetizer, now we want the full course.

@worldoftancraft

2 жыл бұрын

Gladly this wise man's age shows itself nicely, when he voices the foreign words. At lest he's studies for some time instead of Full-Anglo approach «since I am going to butcher, why improve?»

The lumchevak was crazy! I've never seen that in my life, thank you for sharing! Keep up the great videos as always!

Every day that has an upload from Greg is a good day. Edit: I would appreciate hearing your assessment of the Bell engineers report on their trip to the USSR.

Great video. I know this isn't a statement on the historical merits of the planes, but back in the early days of War Thunder I used to live flying the P-39 and P-63 in Historical Battles modes. They were very fun planes to use.

I think one factor with people saying the P-39 has no supercharger is that people frequently discuss (turbo)supercharger (stages) in terms of their impact on altitude performance, and a mechanically driven supercharger that's running at full blow at sea level doesn't impact pilot workload or altitude performance and it gets rolled into the engine. As far as purely flight minded people go, there's a bit of a conceptual misuse of superchargers as being specifically the ones for altitude performance.

@SoloRenegade

2 жыл бұрын

Cars use superchargers too (at Very low altitude)

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

2 жыл бұрын

Only if you have not understood aeroplane supercharging. Greg made this clear many times.

Give Me Operations 🎶 don't give me a P-39 the engine is mounted behind she'll tumble & spin & she'll auger you in don't give me a P-39 🎶 In all honesty, there are many other choruses complaining about other aircraft eg. P-51, P-38, etc. I always found this to be a fascinating aircraft and you have given it a fair and informative breakdown.

Thank you, Greg. I appreciate your research and the time you take to make your videos so approachable and a pleasure to absorb. I was a medic in Dustoff hueys and just the way you speak reminds me of two VN-veteran pilots I had the pleasure to fly with in Germany. Aviation is special. As a kid, I put together model of a P-39 just because of its unique look. There wasn't much in the way of popular post WW2 film/periodical/comic book recognition of its role, but there is just something about a tricycle landing system and the air scoop.

Great job Greg! You cleared up a lot of misconceptions I had.

One thing I’d say about CG is that, as the designer, if your CG moves back because of a mid-engine mount, you just shift your wings backward to accommodate it. Bell wouldn’t have designed an airplane knowing they had an unstable aft cg. I’m surprised anyone ever made that argument.

@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

2 жыл бұрын

That's exactly correct. The wing placement is a huge part of this, and they just move it back. Look at the 727 picture as an example. However at the time people were afraid of pushing the P-39 hard because they were unjustly afraid of it.

@davecrupel2817

2 жыл бұрын

You could move your wings back, or extend your nose, put the prop further up front and extend the drive shaft, and bang. You give yourself nose room for extra fuel storage or an extra cockpit or something! I'm an aircraft mechanic, so I have a rudimentary understanding of CG stuff. Haha

@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, a lot of problems can be solved by making the plane bigger, and very often that was the solution used.

@billallen4793

2 жыл бұрын

@@davecrupel2817 I'm not a aircraft mechanic, but was a lifelong tinkerer of H.P. and a racer I have a million ideas 💡 to build aircraft with this engine placement, even a private high-wing model design, in my head. I'm old and disabled now. But most of the brain 🧠 is still working...lol...from Wyoming USA 🇺🇸 🤠

@allangibson2408

2 жыл бұрын

Having the mass at the middle reduces the moment of inertia which permits the aircraft to turn faster. Having all the guns in the nose reduces the weight of the wings improving the roll rate and makes aiming easier.

I just started the video but I have a feeling this is going to kick ass.

UPS crew member here. Love your videos. Never stop

Surely the fact that Eric “winkle” brown’s favourite aircraft during WW2 was the P39 tells a story, it is mentioned in his book when he took ‘ his’ P39 up for its final flight before it was withdrawn from service due to its age .

@neilbone9490

2 жыл бұрын

Chuck Yeager really rated it too and I’d take their opinions over any ‘armchair aviators’ any day.

@HoverLambo

2 жыл бұрын

He actually took it up after a bell engineer condemned it and put on an acrobatic display....

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

2 жыл бұрын

Geez do any cliché repeaters check before posting? It was a completely decrepit, unloved and utterly useless Bell P-59 Airacomet jet at the Boscombe Down test centre, for a laugh they made a visiting Bell expert take it for a flight just before they scrapped it.

@HoverLambo

2 жыл бұрын

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 actually yes "Winkle tribute to a flying legend" p16: "proof of Erics long and intimate relationship with the Airacobra can be seen from his final flight in AH574, after she was condemned and 'unsafe' by a test pilot from the Bell company which built her. on Mar 28 1946 Eric took AH574 for a final 60 minutes flight which included an aerobatic routine to amuse the Farnborough 'boffins'" It is possible that this book is wrong, or that two different events are being conflated. I do not know, as I wasn't there to personally verify the issue.

@phlodel

2 жыл бұрын

@@neilbone9490 Bob Hoover liked it, too.

Oh man!!! Greg finally did it- covered my favorite Old-ball and controversial aircraft- the P-39!!! Thanks Greg. Can we get a detailed video on the P-51A/36, A-20, and the infamous controversial and misunderstood Martin B-26?

@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

2 жыл бұрын

We do need some Martin B-26 action.

You’re the man Greg! I get excited every time you have a new video. Love you bud, good stuff!

One of my neighbors, along with his many other accomplishments, was a test pilot for Bell during WWII. He loved the Airacobra and considered it the best flying plane he had ever piloted. If the thing had a turbocharger it would have ruled the sky.

@R281

2 жыл бұрын

Check out the p-63. It wasn't turbocharged, but it was faster I believe.

P-43 becoming the P-47 kind shows an example of a company adopting the "just make it work" approach to fitting the turbo. Seems that if the P-39 had similar efforts, it too would have grown larger in size, but gaining performance and possibly having a chance to see the aerodynamics much improved along the way. And ditching the cannon, or at least going with a more normal 20mm or 30mm would have helped. But also fully committing to the mid engine with a pusher prop would have helped too (like the Do 335 or the Celera 500). Pilot and guns more forward in a lighter nose to put fuel between the pilot and engine, with a sliding canopy over that new fuel tank. Retaining the trike gear (almost necessary now with a pusher prop).

@RexKarrs

2 жыл бұрын

P-400s had British 20mm nose cannon. Not much lighter and didn't help much.

@spindash64

2 жыл бұрын

A lighter nose actually makes things WORSE for the Airacobra by moving the CoG too far back, preventing safe flying characteristics at low speeds

@SoloRenegade

2 жыл бұрын

@@spindash64 you don't get it do you? Engineers control the CG when designing an airplane. When doing a redesign, you ALSO recheck the CG. If it is out of place, you shift things around like moving the cockpit forward until it's correct again. this is aeronautics 101, childishly easy basics of aircraft design. That is the most pathetic excuse I keep seeing people make. the location of the engine in an aircraft design in NO way makes a plane more or less stable than any other configuration. the CG doesn't care where teh engine is, so long as the final CG position is in the right place relative to the wing, and this is stupidly easy to manipulate and control. As I pointed out, "Pilot and guns more forward in a lighter nose to put fuel between the pilot and engine" this puts more weight forward of the CG to offset the weight savings in the nose and rebalance the plane. Alternately, you could think about it in terms of just move the wing relative to the fuselage. But the lever arm between the wing and tail will affect handling in certain ways, but which can also be adjusted. middle school kids are smart enough to understand this, don't even have to be an engineer to figure out the solution to the problem.

@whtalt92

2 жыл бұрын

@@spindash64 Simple enough to solve by adding ballast to maintain the CoG range. The Hurricanes that were initially converted to CAMs actually had the reverse problem - fitting a new metal DH prop (to improve climb rate) made it too nose heavy so ballast was added in the rear.

Hey Greg, I've been watching most of your videos and enjoy them a great deal, your attention to detail and research is unmatched and a joy to watch. I would really like a video on the development and implementation of remote controlled turrets, I find it hard to find any information on the subject.

@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

2 жыл бұрын

I have been wanting to make exactly that video. It's part of the A-26 series which isn't out yet.

Greg. Thank you for Another great video. I can’t wait to hear about the P63 and the Soviet experience with the P39.

Saw a P-39 at an airshow once. It's performance at low altitude was quite impressive.

Out of all those in WWII, the P-39 is my #1 favorite. Learned to fly in a tricycle landing gear craft (Cessna 150). Fun aircraft. The 39 is very much more involved. Would've loved to have flown the P-39. I know we would get along well together. Amazing sound it has too. Thanks so much on this video. Clears up a lot of bad press.

I always have thought of the P-39 as a great export fighter and this video reinforces that... As you said it's cheap and it sounds like it was made for border defense something that was extremely unlikely to happen to the US any time the P-39 was in service and only if the axis won. Still sounds like a great plane and I would love to hear more on it!

@SoloRenegade

2 жыл бұрын

P-39 served with Russia into the Korean War.

@tomhart6568

2 жыл бұрын

As an export fighter we sent about 5000 to Russia plus another 2500 P 63s. Russians actually had tech reps at Bell in Buffalo

Learned lots about the P-39, most of which I never knew about. Most informative Greg.

I met Bob Hoover once. His mustache was quite flamboyant at the time.

👍As usual, another excellent video Greg. What surprised me was the disappointing drag factor. It looked like it had good aerodynamics, was compact and not too heavy. Can't help but feel it should have had better performance.

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

2 жыл бұрын

They didn’t appreciate the drag from small intakes and ducts and unfaired abrupt venturi effects.

Informative video, easy to follow. I had thought the engine placement was due to the M4, not aerodynamics. And the engine torque issue makes sense. I never thought of it, really, but that did remind me of something I read about a few Italian fighters having different sized wings to counteract their engine torque.

@ostsan8598

2 жыл бұрын

@yo yo What did he get wrong?

@ostsan8598

2 жыл бұрын

@yo yo So you're saying the engine is not trying to rotate the airframe at all? Just the propeller?

@ostsan8598

2 жыл бұрын

@yo yo I watched it again, and I still don't see how he's wrong. Greg describes what happened with WWII planes in general and why the P39 was unique in addressing that issue. Now, if you're saying he's wrong, please provide an explanation to support that.

@ostsan8598

2 жыл бұрын

@yo yo If you can't explain something well enough that another person can understand it, then you don't understand it. The effect was well documented. Pilots had to compensate for it. Engineers had to design for it. What are all these people missing that you know, yet can't adequately explain for a lay person to understand?

@ostsan8598

2 жыл бұрын

@yo yo That argument was about needing more of the fuselage reinforced because of the unusual engine placement.

Very much appreciate your deep dive into these aircraft .. similar to your work on the P47... this is why I subscribed and you keep delivering.. thanks

Soviets absolutely loved it! Look forward to the P63 video!

One of the other knocks against the P-39 that I'd like to have seen addressed was the claim that the forward-hinged cockpit door made it difficult to bail out.

@SoloRenegade

2 жыл бұрын

See: Trevor Jacobs Also see: Piper Cherokee family, Cessna family of single engine airplanes. It's not too difficult to open the door at lower speeds. But At high speeds when seconds count it could very well have been a problem. I would think a door jettisoning feature would easily remedy that, but I'm not familiar to know if such a thing existed on the P-39.

@peteranderson037

2 жыл бұрын

I have a reprint of the pilot manual. Like any aerobatic aircraft with doors (i.e. Cessna 150 Aerobat), there is a handle that when pulled will pull the hinges out of the doors and jettison them. It may have been quicker to get out of this airplane than others with conventional canopies.

@martijn9568

2 жыл бұрын

I believe there were explosive bolts or something else to quickly bail out of the later variants of the Airacobra.

@tomhart6568

Жыл бұрын

@@SoloRenegade It had it

@alantoon5708

Жыл бұрын

The doors could be jettisoned in an emergency.

With engineers this good it's no wonder they were the ones to break the sound barrier.

Great stuff. I've always been fascinated by the P-39 and would be interested in another video by you on it.

Missed your show glad u put out another great vid

Cool, I love the "iron dog"! Such a 1930's, Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon look. Seriously, the P-39 was not as bad as many think. Under 15k feet, it was fast and manueverable.

@SoloRenegade

2 жыл бұрын

the P-39Q was much better as well. Higher ceiling, higher speed, higher climb rate. A better match for the Zero other than range and maneuverability. Have to stick to Boom and Zoom tactics to win though. Team tactics (wingman) helps a lot too.

Oh Greg, mentioning combat performance in soviet air force, but not summarizing it. What a tease.

@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

2 жыл бұрын

The video was almost 50 mins long. Talking about the plane's operational record and explaining the big difference between the Soviet and US use is going to take about an hour, so there was just no way I could fit it in this video.

@sir0herrbatka

2 жыл бұрын

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Understandable. Hopefully, you will find time for another video on this bird.

Greg, this has to be the best channel on youtube. thanks for making these vids.

Great subject, good talk, informative and good comments. Let sanity prevail.

I always felt that a lot of the problems with the P39 was our pre/early war training and doctrine. Not that it would've ever been up there with the P47s and P51s but I don't feel it was as bad as we're led to believe. The Soviets, from what I've read, did pretty good with them because they found their strengths and weaknesses and then they flew the hell out of them.

@jonathansmith6050

2 жыл бұрын

And air combat on that front seems to have mostly been at lower altitudes because neither side was using high flying heavy bombers; so, except for some recon aircraft, I don't think there much up at altitude to fight over. That means aircraft without mutli-speed and/or multistage supercharging weren't usually suffering from that lack. The Soviets would still need to figure out and play to an aircrafts strengths and weaknesses; but when one weakness is high altitude performance it helps when you've no real need to fight at those altitudes.

@SoloRenegade

2 жыл бұрын

Most famous British fighters weren't that good at altitude either (Hurricane, Spitfires, Typhoon, etc.)

@morgananderson9647

2 жыл бұрын

I believe I remember reading somewhere the P-400 models were considered only as a low altitude fighter, and not well regarded. That early version of the plane it did not even come with a pilot oxygen system. I'm guessing this was done to make the aircraft as light and low cost as possible.

@SoloRenegade

2 жыл бұрын

@@morgananderson9647 The model that was made better was the P-39Q. The P-400 was an early export model, and export models during peacetime are not great.

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

2 жыл бұрын

@@SoloRenegade The unusually tall single speed supercharger Spitfire Mk V was rubbish at low altitude. The post FW 190 introduction Spitfire Mk IX had modest superiority at all altitudes.

The Me-309 (prototypes only) comes to mind with a 30mm cannon firing through the prop and a nosewheel rotating to lie flat under the engine.

@spindash64

2 жыл бұрын

The exception that proves the rule, tbh: they had a LOT of issues with that nose gear collapsing

@guidor.4161

2 жыл бұрын

@@spindash64 Good point, like the ME 262...

What a beautiful plane that captures the "Streamline Moderne" style of the 1930s.

That's it. I just joined your Patreon - something I should have done a year or more ago. A great piece on a really innovative aeroplane. Thanks Greg!

Finally! Someone that addresses the missing turbocharger! I can't tell you how many times I've had "historians" tell me the P-39 never had one. I've been a fan and student of WW II aircraft since I was ten or eleven years old, and I knew damn well I'd read that the P-39 had been originally intended for turbosupercharging. The text I read indicated the bulk of turbochargers produced by GE were slated for Lockheed and the P-38; the Bell Company were a distant second or third. Therefore they chose to delete the turbocharger altogether. Performance suffered accordingly.

@jimwalsh8520

2 жыл бұрын

It had a very poor low level performance, it was a hog of an aircraft. Mid engined, prop shaft running under the pilots feet. A disaster. In fact, until the P51 was give a Merlin Engine, the USA produced no, absolutely no combat capabale fighters

@charleshowlett1291

2 жыл бұрын

Huh? What about the P-38 lightning? My uncle was assigned to one in the Euro theater. He said that it was the shit even up against the P-51 in training. My uncle had 3 kills mostly due to when the enemy saw the freaky looking beast, they turned tail and got the F out of there!

@jimwalsh8520

2 жыл бұрын

@@charleshowlett1291 No P39s were flown by the US 8th or 9th Air Force. The RAF equippd a 601 Squadron but, they only did oe mission before they were sent back. Totally useless. The Russians had success using it as a low level strike platform but, it was poor in concept, dire in flight so, no, your uncle never had 3 kills in Europe ina P39

@charleshowlett1291

2 жыл бұрын

Must be a typo, P-38 is what i was after. My bad

@trinnakendl4565

Жыл бұрын

@@jimwalsh8520 the Russians used them almost exclusively as a fighter. They had Il-2’and Pe-2’s for ground attack. The P-39’s record against the Zero in the Pacifc was roughly one to one. Not ideal but enough to hold the line in New Guinea and Guadalcanal for nearly a year before the US could get the advantage in a war of attrition. Neither the Germans or the Japanese were able to gain air superiority in theatre over the P-39. The advantage the P-39 did have was ease of assembly and maintenance in austere conditions plus they were compact and easy to disassemble so you could fit a lot of the on a ship. It’s these intangibles that are never mentioned. Had the US sent P-38’s right away they would have had half the aircraft using twice the resources.

Greg, have you read the book Nanette, by Edwards Park? ' 'Nanette , a tempermental P-39 Airacobra, was a Gopher squadron plane flying against the Japanese in New Guinea. To Park, she was a 'sexy machine, and rotten.' Together they flew countless wartime missions, so vividly described here that the reader sighs with relief when Nanette and her pilot return safely,"

@sadwingsraging3044

2 жыл бұрын

Have to check this out. Thanks!

Greg, great vids, thank you! Back in the 80’s I worked at Harvey Young airport on a P-47, P-38 and P-39, just did sheet metal work and machining but so cool for a young man who loved P-47’s. Got to meet Neel Kearby’s son there as well, he had a Pitt special there, right next to where we were working on the 47, great times!

Thank you for another fantastic video. For all the planes performance problems I do know that there was Marines on the ground on Guadalcanal cheering the P39s on a gun run on the perimeter.

Thanks for another interesting video, Greg! Btw. it's Lomcovák, not Lumchevak (google translate can give you an easy idea of pronounciation). Lomcovák means an object, that wildly shakes you up (can be a synonym to a strong alcohol, or hangover aswell ;) ) Greetings from Czech republic.

The mid engine also gives the P-39 excellent moments of inertia. (More of the mass is near the CG so it doesn’t have to leverage it up or down when pitching). I think, Chuck Yeager mentions this in his book.

Thanks again for yet another informative video. Just a couple of points to add. First, one of the main reasons for deleting the turbocharger was to get a modern fighter into combat service as soon as possible. Working out all the problems with the turbo would have added months and maybe years before it was ready. The contemporary P-38 didn't get into combat until the very end of 1942 while the P-39 was ready for combat in spring of 1941 had it been necessary. Second, the fuel capacity could have been easily increased by replacing the ineffective wing light machine guns with 15 gallon fuel tanks in each wing. That would increase the total internal fuel capacity to 150 gallons, same as the P-38 and P-40.

Well done article on the Aircobra

Excellent, Greg, as usual. The CG discussion was enlightening, as well as your commentary about drag. I've always thought the P-39 was one of the sexiest-looking fighters of WW II, and wondered why - especially given the cliché that "if it looks fast, it'll fly fast" I've often seen attached to the P-51 - its performance at low altitude (I've known about the turbo issue for a long time) wasn't better. Drag goes a long way toward explaining that. Close examination of your photos that include the cockpit show why visibility was less than optimal, as well. A bubble canopy would have helped immensely. Yes! Yes! By all means, put together another video on the plane's performance. So much of what I've read about its combat performance paints the P-39 as a dog in the air, which clashes dramatically with the service it provided to a lot of apparently quite satisfied Russian pilots on the Eastern Front. And, since I'm a Pacific-theater guy due to my Dad's combat service there with VF-19, I'm especially interested in its success - or lack thereof - against the Japanese, since much of the dogfighting in the Pacific was done at relatively low altitudes (much like the Russian front), where the turbo issue should have had less of an effect.

@billallen4793

2 жыл бұрын

Great comment 👍! Thank your father for my freedom! My grandfather was navy pacific theater, I'm a 13yr Army Bratt who traveled the world 🌎 on the Uncle Sam travel plan until 1986ish!....from Wyoming USA 🇺🇸 🤠

@fafner1

2 жыл бұрын

The Japanese bombers attacking Guadalcanal came in at a reasonably high altitude, 20,000 ft or higher if my recollection is correct. This meant the P-39/P-400 had a hard time intercepting them and was dead meat for the escort Zero's at that altitude. Interceptions were delegated to the Grumman Wildcats, and the P-400's used for ground support where they functioned quite well.

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

2 жыл бұрын

P-400s had incompatible oxygen equipment that the USAAF could not use.

That XP-37 would be a ground-handling nightmare for the pilot, what with what looks like at least 13 feet if nose ahead of the cockpit and that conventional undercarriage.

A well-researched analysis. Thanks Greg.

Hello Greg. I really enjoyed the video. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to share your knowledge and your effort with these videos. After clicking the link for the Lumchevak it is easy to understand why you did not want to describe it!

@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks, the first time I saw a Lumchevak I wasn't sure what just happened.

Another excellent video, Greg. Now I know why the P-39 didn't have a turbocharger. I thought they deliberately left it out from design.