Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >>

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 9/2/2002 5:58:17 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

The standard P39 was pretty fast in low-altitude level flight, and even faster than the A6M. But, because it lacked a blower it was an acceleration dog and tended to lose energy quickly in combat. It was not the plane to be in with a Zeke behind you unless you had altitude enough to put the nose down and run away. Unfortunately, without a blower it was basically limited to <14K feet anyhow, so one tended to be without altitude or options.

A fun play to fly in flight sims though. The best tactic if you're not bounced is to charge in head on an a little high, open with the .50s until you think you're hitting, then use the 37mm and hope it doesn't jam. If the 37 actually fires, skim above the debris of your target and keep going hexxs bells until you are well clear of the fight, knowing that you "got one and lived ot fight another day." Otherwise just cut and run and take credit for a "possible."

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 31

- 9/2/2002 9:00:27 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

I recall reading that the P-39 tested with a turbo-charger actually performed quite well, but for some reason the powers that be decided not to install them on the plane. Does anyone know why?

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 32

- 9/2/2002 10:01:17 AM

tohoku

Posts: 415
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: at lunch, thanks.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo

"Were our enemies as evil as our propaganda makes them out to be, and us so good?"

Tell it to the dead. You can find 25 million or so murdered victims of Japanese aggression to debate it with. Maybe the victims at Nanking, the ghosts of the babies they caught on bayonets or played "baby baseball" with, the women gang raped to death, the millions of dead Chinese, the victims of biological warfare experiments, or maybe the Allied POW's dissected "live and screaming" at Japanese universities will debate the meaning of "evil" with you...I'm not gonna.

[/QUOTE]

I think you have seriously missed the point he was making.

tohoku
YMMV

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 33

- 9/2/2002 5:29:34 PM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]I recall reading that the P-39 tested with a turbo-charger actually performed quite well, but for some reason the powers that be decided not to install them on the plane. Does anyone know why? [/B][/QUOTE]

Ah this is a good one! When the USAAF originally ordered the first batch of 12 for service testing,(april '39) they also ordered an extra one with [I]out[/I] a turbo fitted. While the Army was busy playing with these units and liking what they saw (YP-39A), the NACA (guess who they were the fore-runner to?) got it's hands on the XP-39A and called for over 60 modifications to be made, one of which was the [I]removal[/I] of the Turbo Supercharger ! Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why? Well it seems that the thinking of the time was theat the US would never have to face long-range high altitude enemy bomber attacks, and so the only possible missions that the P-39 would face CAS and ship-strike ! Why load an aircraft with a turbo if it is going to spend all of it's working life flying on the deck.:rolleyes:

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 34

- 9/3/2002 11:48:32 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave
[B]

Ah this is a good one! When the USAAF originally ordered the first batch of 12 for service testing,(april '39) they also ordered an extra one with [I]out[/I] a turbo fitted. While the Army was busy playing with these units and liking what they saw (YP-39A), the NACA (guess who they were the fore-runner to?) got it's hands on the XP-39A and called for over 60 modifications to be made, one of which was the [I]removal[/I] of the Turbo Supercharger ! Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why? Well it seems that the thinking of the time was theat the US would never have to face long-range high altitude enemy bomber attacks, and so the only possible missions that the P-39 would face CAS and ship-strike ! Why load an aircraft with a turbo if it is going to spend all of it's working life flying on the deck.:rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

Well that makes some sense in 1939, but by 1942 why where they not put in when there was an obvious need for hight altitude performance?

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 35

- 9/4/2002 3:34:52 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

That's basically the story. A note of detail, NACA's preliminary tests showed that the turbo slightly hampered performance in 1939, (but of course, all the tests were at low altitude for the reasons given by Raverdave) so the turbo was removed. With it, the P39 *in 1939* had a ceiling of 30K feet and a top speed of (IIRC) about 390 mph.

The 1942 P39s were not given tscs (trubosuperchargers) for several reasons: first, a general shortage of same, with tscs reserved for the P40 and newly arriving P38s, second, most of the P39s in critical theaters were in place, and, third, (this is speculation on my part), there may have been space/design considerations that made the problem more complicated than merely adding a tsc to the existing engine. For one thing, the P39 was an unusual a/c, with the engine located *aft* of the pilot. That's a fairly narrow space to accomodate a field-installed tsc I suppose.

In 1942 Bell was asked to reintroduce the P39 with some rounded out f/b capability. It entered production as the slightly larger but generally similar P63, with a tsc and a top speed in the high 390s-low 400s. It bears the distinction, IIRC, of being the only major first-line US made fighter not to serve in combat for the US during WW2 (being primarily used for training and lend-lease).

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 36

- 9/4/2002 2:21:16 PM

Possum

Posts: 349
Joined: 3/27/2000
From: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Status: offline

Also remember that in 1939 to 1942 the Turbosupecharger was an export restricted item, no aircraft was allowed to leave the USA if it was fitted with one. For fear that other people would figure out how to make them.
But everone already knew how to make ordinary superchargers, so it seems rather silly to me.
I mean once the idea has been thought up, then it simply a matter of re-engineering an existing supercharger to run off an exhaust gas turbine, rather than a direct power takeoff from the driveshaft.

_____________________________

"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 37

- 9/5/2002 8:38:15 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo
[B]Tell it to the dead. You can find 25 million or so murdered victims of Japanese aggression to debate it with. Maybe the victims at Nanking, the ghosts of the babies they caught on bayonets or played "baby baseball" with, the women gang raped to death, the millions of dead Chinese, the victims of biological warfare experiments, or maybe the Allied POW's dissected "live and screaming" at Japanese universities will debate the meaning of "evil" with you...I'm not gonna. [/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tohoku
[B]I think you have seriously missed the point he was making. [/B][/QUOTE]

Haven't you guys already had this discussion?

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 38