Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Curious details


  • Please log in to reply
174 replies to this topic

#11 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,654 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 9 Months
  • 111 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 02 November 2016 - 08:57 PM

About this drastic overload figure have I always wondered If it was possible actually by skipping all defencies!?

#12 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 8 Months and 1 Day
  • 138 topics

Posted 03 November 2016 - 10:08 AM

I suppose guns & ammo were among the 18,000lb removed. I would also guess that they loaded very little fuel - short missions, one-way trip - which would also help with the load

#13 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,654 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 9 Months
  • 111 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 05 November 2016 - 04:51 AM

The Aphrodite did. They took out 12,000lb of equipment and added 30,000lb of explosives which equates to an 18,000lb bombload


To Me it sounds like the Aphrodite experiments are the reason why the spec's of the B-17 has the overload-notice :-/

Edited by Armand, 05 November 2016 - 04:52 AM.


#14 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,654 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 9 Months
  • 111 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 05 November 2016 - 04:58 AM

#3:
The Bell Airacobra didn't catch popularity among US pilots and the same became the fact when it came into the hands of RAF pilots.
Talking about RAF: The British Spitfire is considered to be the epithome of a fighter aircraft.

Both aircraft was delievered to Soviet and the Soviet pilots preferred the Airacobra to the Spitfire :-o

#15 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,281 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 1 Month and 18 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 05 November 2016 - 05:40 AM

The Soviets viewed the air arm as simple ground support. The P-39 was a better ground attacker than the Spitfire by LONG shot. It had centerline guns and a hard-hitting cannon when compared with 8 x .303 MG, at least if it didn't jam. It also was not what the Spitifre really might be in Soviet use, and that is it wasn't "delicate." It could take some "hangar rash" and still be ready to fly. The Spitfire is rather easy to hurt and it takes some skill to repair it.

 

As an air-to-air bird, the P-39 was fine down low, and that's where the Soviet aircrews flew. The Spitfire was far and away a better pure fighter, faster, better armed and all the OTHER things we know it had over the P-39, but the Soviets were more concerned with support of ground troops than they were about killing German fighters.

 

Also, the Allison was pretty rugged when compared with the Merlin. That is, it would hold a tune longer (less mechanic time) and still be able to sortie with less maintenance. We also had spare parts available. I'm guessing that the UK needed their spares for their own Spitifres more than we needed spares for P-39s.

 

So it kind of fit their mold at the time ...



#16 Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 2 Months and 29 Days
  • 12 topics
  • LocationRiga, Latvia

Posted 08 November 2016 - 06:03 PM

The alleged Soviet use of P-39's in ground support role is a translation error.

 

They were deployed as air cover to ground-attack planes, as they were valued and regarded as high-value assets. That does not rule out their occasional strafing runs on targets of opportunity, but they were not used as ground attack planes. Soviets had better planes for that.


-<HR>-

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Prince of Heräkulma

 


#17 Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 2 Months and 29 Days
  • 12 topics
  • LocationRiga, Latvia

Posted 08 November 2016 - 08:21 PM

#4 Eating carrots does not make your night vision better. (or you need to eat A LOT of them to have any effect, probably you turn orange first, check "Brainiac" and human traffic light...) It was British cover story for public to disguise the presence of AI radar, they told that they have their night fighter crews in special diet with a lot of carrots. The public and the Germans fell for that and it is still "common knowledge" ... 


  • Armand likes this

-<HR>-

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Prince of Heräkulma

 


#18 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,281 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 1 Month and 18 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 08 November 2016 - 08:53 PM

Hi Heräkulman,

 

That's not what I heard about the P-39 from Russian who were former VVS pilots. That being said, nothing says what they told me (the P-39 was a great ground attacker) was true.

 

Now I'm curious, but no time to pursue it just now. It should be an interesting thing to look into when I get the chance. It's fairly likely I'll find you are correct. I had never considered that as the real use they made of the P-39, so it'll be fun to find out for sure, assuming I CAN find out.



#19 Kutscha

Kutscha

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,581 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 9 Months and 18 Days
  • 117 topics

Posted 08 November 2016 - 11:53 PM

Herk is correct Greg.

 

Russian pilots flew the P-39 Airacobra as "air superiority fighters," and at the low to medium altitudes of air combat on the Eastern Front, they did so with considerable success, against German Fw 190s and Bf 109s. The 216th Fighter Division (later 9th Guards Fighter Division) flew Airacobras from August, 1942 to the end of the war in May, 1945 and counted 28 aces with at least 15 victories.

 

http://acepilots.com..._airacobra.html

 

There is this book Attack of the Airacobras: Soviet Aces, American P-39s, and the Air War Against Germany (Modern War Studies)

https://www.amazon.c...k/dp/0700616543

 

Focusing on the combat operations and daily life of one unit—the 9th Guards Fighter Division—Loza refutes the myth that the P-39 was used mainly as a "tank buster" or "flying artillery." Instead, its primary mission was to protect Red Army operations from aerial attacks by the enemy. So despite the occasional strafing of trains, truck convoys, and troops, most P-39 operations involved attacks on Luftwaffe bombers and dogfights with their fighter escorts.


  • CORSNING and Heräkulman Ruhtinas like this

#20 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 5 Months and 18 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 09 November 2016 - 12:44 AM

The Soviets viewed the air arm as simple ground support. The P-39 was a better ground attacker than the Spitfire by LONG shot. It had centerline guns and a hard-hitting cannon when compared with 8 x .303 MG, at least if it didn't jam. It also was not what the Spitifre really might be in Soviet use, and that is it wasn't "delicate." It could take some "hangar rash" and still be ready to fly. The Spitfire is rather easy to hurt and it takes some skill to repair it.

 

From what I understand the 37mm wasn't all that hard hitting, and that many were changed for 20mm Hispanos (not sure about Soviet service).

 

And by the time the Spitfire was being sent to the Soviet Union they were no longer fitted with 8 x 0.303", the standard fitment being 2 x 20mm and 4 x 0.303".






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users