Feel free to join our Discord community! - discord.gg/WCevgcufwJ Consider supporting us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/AviationDeepDive

A first time viewer here, and this is a damn fine video. In 1981 I was flying out of Fort Nelson, BC, in support of resource extraction. One of my duties was to fly a Cessna-185 on floats hauling people and supplies in and out of remote sites along the Liard and MacKenzie Rivers, and remote exploration camps further north. Fort Nelson is Mile 300 on the Alaska Hwy and was a refueling point for aircraft enroute the Soviet Union from CONUS. Northeast of Ft Nelson was a camp on July Lake, near the BC/AL/NWT borders. I flew in there on floats and found a P-39 that had obviously bellied into the tundra-like ground. Judging by the nature of the damage to the prop, I don't think that the engine was running when it touched down. The gear was still retracted. You can just imagine a young ferry pilot, probably American, lost in the weather over Northern BC, finally running out of fuel. A few months later I heard that the oil workers had bulldozed the P-39 into scrap making a cutline. Having actually seen it made all that history real to me.

@Hartley_Hare

Ай бұрын

What a fantastic story, and a heartbreaking end to the P-39's story.

A good video except for one thing. It perpetuates the myth that the Allison engine did not have a supercharger. ALL Allison's had a supercharger, a single speed/single stage unit that provided great performance up to about 15K feet. lack of a 2nd stage and 2nd speed being its weakness. The later P-63 King Cobra had a 2nd supercharger stage that solved that issue.

@stevep5408

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the info

@bobsakamanos4469

Ай бұрын

I believe he meant that it was without its turbo as per the prototype. All military combat aircraft had superchargers of course.

You're in top form here, again. Thanks very much for a highly enjoyable 40 minutes.

This is why videos like this are so awesome, it really is nice to hear about these stories. Bravo man. thank you as always ^w^

Great video! I like the in-depth service and ferry history that others don't get into. Your content is growing well.

@aviationdeepdive

Ай бұрын

Appreciate that! Unfortunately, these long form videos don't seem to do very well views wise, not sure why

Honestly, the P-39 had the most beautiful lines of any fighter from any country. The decision to delete the supercharger was a galactically stupid one. With it, it was a force to be reckoned with at high altitude.

wonderful presentation - thank you

The P-39 did have a supercharger. Deletion of a second stage turbo-supercharger did not delete the shaft driven blower.

@magoid

Ай бұрын

I was about to point that out.

Great video!

Makes a P-39 video, uses P-63 for thumbnail. P-63F-1-BE Kingcobra Last Military Serial: 43-11719 USAAF

@abird6217

Ай бұрын

huh? it does not have a P-63 in the thumbnail

Excellent documentary. Keep these coming. I especially like the war stories.

@0:41, several P-63s, one P-39. @1:00, view of two P-63s. One minute in and I am going to pay attention to see how many times the two aircraft are confused.

@mathewkelly9968

Ай бұрын

How many photos how much footage etc do you think exist for either aircraft ?

@bwayne40004

Ай бұрын

@@mathewkelly9968 Since we only had a few Army fighter models at the beginning of the war (P-36, P-39, P-40) with the P-39 and P-40 sharing the major load, I'd say we had a lot of photo and film content for the P-39. Especially in the early war and New Guinea area. P-63? Not as much as it was used for training and target practice and went to the Russians.

Great vid mate. As to kill claims I am VERY dubious about Luftwaffe ‘experten’ victories on the Eastern Front. How have Hartman’s claims been verified (if at all) for instance? All pilots and air gunners over claimed (roughly by about 40-75%) for very understandable reasons.

@Hartley_Hare

Ай бұрын

There's a website a few years old where someone has tried to verify all of Hartmann's victories. I think it was a work in progress, judging by the date on the comments, and there were some uncertainties. But I agree - I don't think sone of the claims are credible.

Excellent video of a much-maligned aircraft. Many thanks!

Another good aviation channel? Nice!

@aviationdeepdive

Ай бұрын

Thanks a lot!

Great vid!

Beautiful

The P-39 had altitude limitations but it's main problem for the Americans was range. In both Europe and the Pacific the Americans needed an aircraft that could fly relatively long distances - if it was to have an offensive role. Early on - in the Pacific - the Japanese were attacking the Americans - coming TO them - so range wasn't as big an issue - but once the Americans went on the offensive - it's range limitations precluded it from doing anything at all. Soviet air fields were much closer to the front and they had Germans Attacking them - a lot - so range was not a problem - and since more of the combat was ground related - again - the P-39's limitations were not a problem. The other thing about the P-39 was that it had all it's main armament in the fuselage - where the 37 and the .50's were. The Russians took the .30's out of the wings to increase it's role rate. Guns in the wings had to be harmonized to converge at a specific range - and the Russians didn't like doing that. So - the P-39 was easily converted to a Soviet Style aircraft operating the way they liked. That and it had a really good radio by Russian Standards. So the Russians loved it. In contrast - they did not like Spitfires and Hurricanes with guns in the wings. The P-39's could also carry a moderate sized bomb under the fuselage. This wasn't much by American Standards for a Fighter Plane but was compared to many Soviet Built Fighters. All things considered - the P--39 was the perfect Lend Lease aircraft to send the Soviets. Kelsey - who despite his low rank played a major part in fighter production for the Americans - was diverted to England - and not there to fight for the 2nd Stage Supercharger - which he regretted. The thing is - the P-39 - even with a 2nd Stage Supercharger - wouldn't have had the range the Americans needed offensively. Putting the 37 in the nose - meant moving the engine to the middle - which meant that you couldn't put a fuel tank there. The pointy nose and the tricycle gear - meant you lacked depth to the front of the aircraft - where ducting for a Supercharger or fuel could have gone. So - some of the things about the 39's design that were considered positive - had their draw backs. There were reasons why other manufacturers didn't do that. .

@bobsakamanos4469

Ай бұрын

The P-39 was also an unstable gun platform ( according to test pilots at Wright-Patterson ) near the stall region. That same instability was the source of the tumble and spin reputation, and landing accidents.

@rlemeuse

Күн бұрын

I agree. Also I think one thing that doesn't get brought up as well is it's, terrible center of gravity and it liked to enter in unrecoverable flat spins in a dogfight. According to Bud Anderson in his book To fly and fight. I also think that the nose cannon damage is over valued in in the dogfight area. I'm most cases API 50cal was plenty of damage for dogfighting especially against the Japanese.

Awesome!

Someone should explain how deleting the turbo, which was behind the CG, moved the CG aft.

amazing!

Correction : 01:15 the slang inside soviet Air Force marks P-39 not "cobrachka", but "Bellochka" (means: "Bell_the_cute" or "Bell_sweetie")... anyway: much RESPECT for the video!

The P-39 was used in the ETO during the Torch Landings and invasion of Italy. It was quite successful when engaging Axis aircraft below 15000ft including the Me 109G and often attacked bombers and fighters alike. Of course it could not escort heavy bombers.

@Cuccos19

Ай бұрын

That was actually called MTO - Mediterranean Theater of Operations - not the ETO.

@williamzk9083

Ай бұрын

@@Cuccos19 Nevertheless the aircraft was effective when used below 15000ft

Im pretty sure the firepower is why it did so well in Soviet service , like they had better fighters in every catergory except firepower

Very interesting doc on the P-39, I'm going to have to remember the RAF song, but i still don't like the door. :-)

@neiloflongbeck5705

Ай бұрын

There's a USAAF song about the P-39 tumbling.

P-39 was not a failure In the very tightly planned XP-39, though, there was no internal space left over for the turbo. Using a drag-buildup scheme, a number of potential areas of drag reduction were found. NACA concluded that a top speed of 429 mph (690 km/h) could be realized with the aerodynamic improvements they had developed and an uprated V-1710 with only a single-stage, single-speed supercharger.

Point of order. The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was never called “Nakka” before the formation NASA. It was a highly regarded aeronautical research arm of the Federal Government. In all literature prior to July 1959 the initials of the organization were always, repeat always, preceded by “the” and the letters sounded out just like the USDA, the FBI, the CIA, etc. It has only been since the internet that uninformed persons have referred to the NACA as “Nakka”.

@goodvibebeats4168

Ай бұрын

I guess Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles are also uninformed then? Give me a break. When initials spell out a word that can be easily pronounced, it can be said as a word, the reason USDA, FBI and CIA aren't said like words is because it doesn't feel natural to say them as words. You're not right, you're just pretentious.

@utubejdaniel8888

Ай бұрын

@@goodvibebeats4168 Pretentious, perhaps, but I am right. I grow weary of the internet/gamer influence on aviation, and this is just another example. It is a kind of shibboleth, if I hear someone say "nakka" I know I am dealing with a philistine, just as when I hear someone say “Sue 27”. It is, and always has been an “S-you 27". Greg is the man on lots of things, but we disagree on NACA.

@goodvibebeats4168

Ай бұрын

​@@utubejdaniel8888 The idea that you would refer to someone as a philistine because of a perfectly reasonable pronunciation of an acronym is absurd. You are not right at all, you just have some arbitrary, unarticulated and unjustified view that acronyms can't be said out loud phonetically. I cannot stand unarticulated beliefs, you have no good reason why an acronym shouldn't be said phonetically, and thus your 'shibboleth' is pointless. From your comment, it's obvious that you are desperate to assert yourself as someone kind of older, wiser, authority, when you are neither. "Gamer" influence on aviation? What are you talking about? "Internet" influence? Utterly meaningless.

@raydesmond6712

Ай бұрын

'goodvibebeats' is correct, you have arbitrarily decided some 'rule' for no good reason. Many acronyms are said as if they were words, it is an established thing in the English language.

@utubejdaniel8888

Ай бұрын

@@raydesmond6712 Not really a "rule", more of a shibboleth in the aeronautics community.

Like it did ok in Pacific US/Aus/NZ service despite the reputation

"Hey Little Cobra don't you know you're going to shut them down!" ....... borrowing a line from "The Rid Chords'" 1960s song, "Hey Little Cobra."

Interesting how the Allison never got a decent mechanical supercharger. Actually the turbosupercharger was a rare thing on WWII fighters - only the P-38 and P-47 had it what put into large scale use. All others had non turbo type superchargers and many of them worked great. Like the Merlin 60 and 70 series dual speed, dual stage mechanical superchargers or the DB series had hydro clutch type superchargers and also worked great. The US radials had decent mechanical superchargers too. So what went wrong with the Allison V-1710?

@gort8203

Ай бұрын

The Allison didn't get a 2 stage blower because the Army was betting on the Turbosupercharger, which promised to be superior but lagged in development. But it did get a 'decent' one later on, as installed in the P-63 and P-82. Maybe not quite as good as the one on the Packard V1650, but decent.

@SmedleyDouwright

Ай бұрын

USAF four engine bombers were also turbocharged. So turbos saw a lot of use , but not not in all fighters.

It was the perfect lend lease aircraft for the Soviets. Not acceptable as a dogfighting aircraft for the US according to Material Command test pilots due to poor roll-yaw stability near the stall, and excessively light stick forces during g manouvers, but good climb performance to its critical altitude below 15,000'.

P-39 was not failure in any means! It was excellent dogfighter. It just didn't meet requirements of American air force. Americans needed, at the time, long range fighters for escort missions, not aerial defence fighter.

@danhubert-hx4ss

Ай бұрын

At low altitude, yes.

@gort8203

Ай бұрын

It did meet not meet its original design specifications, but it did meet the immediate need of the USAAF, which is why it was put into production. The USAAF was growing rapidly from its pre war size and the Army desperately needed as many fighters as it could get. The P-39 was available, and it served an important role for the US in North Africa and the Pacific. Nobody else had long range fighters at that time. Classic single engine fighters were short range machines meant for the tactical battlefield rather than escort of long range strategic bombers. Those were added later, but the need for fighters over the battlefield never went away.

@bobsakamanos4469

Ай бұрын

Sorry, but the P-39 was an unstable gun platform ( according to test pilots at Wright-Patterson ) near the stall region. That same instability was the source of the tumble and spin reputation, and landing accidents.

@gort8203

Ай бұрын

@@bobsakamanos4469 Maybe we should leave all the loaded and misleading terminology like "dogfight", "gun platform", and "instability" out of the discussion, and focus on reason the airplane was not a failure: The Russians had great success with the P-39 in air-to-air combat, achieving the highest score of the war for any U.S. built aircraft.

@bobsakamanos4469

Ай бұрын

@@gort8203 yes, let's look at actual results, but you cannot believe the Soviet claims at all. Look at the accident rates in the US P-39 training units were 3x higher than P-40 training units. If it was so good, why weren't they used in numbers in the MTO where bombers flew tactical missions at 12,000' and fighters didn't need long range or high altitude ability. As for Material Command and USAAF requirements, you can't just ignore those standards that Bell couldn't deliver, but of course Larry knew the secret handshake to get his contracts. Short answer, don't believe the Soviet propaganda where pilots were given financial reward for each claimed kill and the consequences for poor performance was draconian.

wow, thanks for this brilliant video!

@aviationdeepdive

Ай бұрын

Glad you liked it!

So the NACA lost the script? I thought the airforce was all about high altitude bombers by this point. One would think they’d like similar out of their pursuits

@gort8203

Ай бұрын

USAAF was hardly all about strategic bombardment, which had to compete with and often took a back seat to tactical employment of aircraft for much of the war. This is why the P-39 was produced even after it failed to meet it original performance specs. The USAAF was rapidly growing from a tiny pre-war air force and desperately needed large numbers of fighters. The P-39 was available and it went went to North Africa and the Pacific. It wasn't sent to England because unlike North Africa and the Pacific high altitude fighters were needed there.

Pronouncing Kuban as if it were "Cuban" probably confuses some viewers. .Better to prounce it Koo-ban

Bf-109's became the first planes flown by the new Israeli Air Force in 1948

Way too many P-63s to continue watching. 🥱

@Hartley_Hare

Ай бұрын

I'm sure you have terribly important things to do.