P-39 vs A6M vs Bf 109
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 гру 2021
- Merry Christmas!
Performance comparison between the American fighter P-39 Airacobra and two of its fiercest rivals. The Japanese A6M "Zero" and the Messerschmitt Bf 109.
Game footage and aircraft models
War Thunder - / warthunder .
0:04 P-39 vs A6M
4:23 P-39 vs Bf 109
Disclaimer - This channel is apolitical. We do not endorse any kind of political view.
Corrections
- Nothing.
Music:
- Beautiful Oblivion by Scott Buckley ssoundcloud.comscottbuckley
Music promoted by httpswww.free-stock-music.com
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
screativecommons.orglicensesby4.0
SFX
Old Vintage Film Scratches:
www.videezy.com/Free Stock Video Footage by Videezy.com
Sources
- "The Bell P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra fighters - Soviet Service During the World War II" - Yefim Gordon and Sergey Komissarov with Dmitriy Komissarov - ISBN 978-0-7643-5680-3
- "P-39/P-400 Airacobra vs A6M2/3 Zero-Sen - New Guinea 1942" - Michael John Claringbould - ISBN 978-1-4728-2366-3
- "P-39 Airacobra Aces of World War 2" - George Mellinger and John Stanaway - ISBN 1-84176-204-0
- "Bell P-39 Airacobra" - Robert F. Dorr with Jerry C. Scutts - ISBN 1-86126-348-1
- www.historynet.com/aviation-h...
- "Samurai! The Autobiography of Japan's Bravest Fighter Ace" - with Martin Caidin and Fred Saito
- "NACA report 868 - Summary of Lateral Control Research"
- "Fighter Comparison Study, No.1 - The Curtiss P-40C Tomahawk vs. the Mitsubishi A6M2 Model 21 Zero-Sen" By Murray Rubenstein
- "Aircraft Evaluation Report - Report No. 110 Messerschmitt ME-109F" - U.S Army Air Forces, Washington D.C
I do not own any of the images used in this video. The owners of such images are identified in the video itself. - Авто та транспорт
Merry Christmas! I hope you enjoy this video; it might be a bit lackluster by itself. Still, let me know if you like the new style, or if you find it confusing. Also, if there is too much information or too little, your feedback is essential so I can improve. Thank you very much for watching!
I like the format, the well organized information was presented clearly with relevant statistics and I really liked the quotes from the people who experienced these aircraft first-hand. The graphics were clean, engaging and neatly laid out in an easy to understand manner. I hardly paid attention to the music but that's good because I was able focus on your video. Great material also! Very interesting. The thumbnail was also really eye catching.
This was excellent!
Let me point out that the currently adopted formula puts your video at the forefront of materials popularizing knowledge about WW2 airplanes. This is not a compliment!
My father, Lt. Richard D. Kent, flew the P-39 on Guadalcanal and other islands during the Solomons campaign. Some American pilots regarded the fighter as a "flying coffin," but my father loved the P-39. He said the best situation for P-39s occurred when they joined an aerial battle already in progress, after dogfights had forced Zero pilots to dive to a lower altitude while evading pursuit. My father was awarded the DFC after shooting down three Japanese planes and sharing credit for downing a fourth.
The P-39 was intended as a high altitude interceptor with a two stage supercharger with the second stage provided by a turbo supercharger. The turbo got deleted. The myth that the Allison was not supercharged is a myth. The only thing is the Allison's supercharger was a single stage single speed unit that was able to maintain engine power up to around 12,000 ft/4000m. The reason that Allison did not place the engineering effort into developing a two stage/two speed mechanical supercharger was the decision by the USAAC in the 1930s that future high boost altitude supercharging of aero engines was to be done with turbos. This changed when production of bomber aircraft equipped with radial engines using turbo supercharger ramped up causing shortages in the needed alloys for the drive side turbine. These engines were primarily Wright radials. Pratt & Whitney on the other hand did put the engineering effort into developing a two stage two speed mechanical supercharger. The only Allison equipped US fighter that used turbo superchargers was the P-38. The plane was literally designed around its turbo supercharger system. Installing Packard built Merlins or an Allison with a two stage/speed supercharger would have meant redesigning the entire airframe.
Chuck Yeager loved flying the P39. They should have used a 20mm and no wing guns. Higher rounds per minute and you save 200-300 pounds of weight saving.
The Russians cherished the P- 39s sent to them. When the U.S. announced it would shut down the P-39 manufacturing plant in Buffalo, the Soviet government asked FDR to countermand the order. And the Russians removed the MGs in the wings of their Airacobras. My USAAF father, who as mentioned above flew the P-39 in the Solomons, told me he did not use his wing-mounted MGs in aerial combat, as they had a different trajectory than the MGs & cannon in the nose of the plane. He reserved the wing MGs for strafing missions.
Your father was an above average pilot ! Wright Field test pilots condemned it for a host of reasons.
The Zero had "light armor"? I respectfully disagree, the Zero had NO armor.
I believe some of the later versions had at least an optional armor plate behind the pilot
Yeager and a few others said they had to work hard to get a 39 to spin despite the reputation. And when it did spin it recovered easily. It had to have been an issue in VERY specific conditions only. Also worth mentioning is the 39 could out dive either plane and was very forgiving of water landings while a zero or 109 usually flipped.
😁 What this guest said is so true.
ua-cam.com/video/BDStYMGa__g/v-deo.html
Good points!
A superior aspect of the P-39 was its exceptional ground handling, compared to the Bf 109's miserable ground handling.
Yes, that is true. I completely forgot to cover the airplanes when it came to landing and on the ground. Thank you for your comment.
Tricycle landing gear vs nose into the German dirt
@@AllthingsWW2 True
I watch a old 1980ish TV interview with Adolf Galland and he said he wanted all 109s production to be halted and replaced by the FW-190 if he had it his way.
I think it was due to landing and takeoff loses.
@@Crashed131963 The 190 was not any better at ground handling, but it was better on hastily built and poorly maintained runways
@@TheWhoamaters The 190s very wide landing gears stance vs the 109s narrow stance was so obvious.
Nice comparison! Thanks! I think the P-39 really gets a bad rap and was more successful than people think. In both theaters it flew against pilots with more experience.
Thank you!
Thirty two years ago I spoke to a former member of the Australian artillery who participated in the landings at Nadzab and stayed after the war to raise a family. He recalled watching P39's attacking Japanese observer posts on Mount Ngaroneno overlooking the Markham Valley and he said they loved the Cobra. They also attacked Japanese barges running up and down the river. Its wasn't all one on one air combat.
It comes down to stragity knowing when to live to fight another day. The leading American ace in the Pacific flew the twin engine P38 you just never dogfight with a Zero hit and run. If they get behind you dive away full speed.
and his closest rival died because he forgot that maxim just one time it seemed.
He forgot, or refused, to release his drop-tanks and entered a high speed stall while trying to get behind an Oscar. This happened at low altitude and he flipped upside down and crashed. Had he stuck to boom & zoom tactics he probably would’ve broken Bong’s 40 kill record. Some think this was the reason why he didn’t want to release his drop-tanks. Hoped they could extend their patrol to shoot down more aircraft.
Really like your video, especially the way you present those comparisons!
It was the "clunky" US aircraft that faced down the Japanese and German fighters - the P-40, Wildcat, P-39, early P-47 without the paddle blade propellor. By the time the Merlin-powered Mustang, P-47D, Hellcat and Corsair entered service, the hardest work had already been done. If we compare the earlier aircraft to the later ones, naturally the later ones will look better; if we look at kill ratios, naturally the early war, fighting more experienced axis pilots in greater numbers, will not look as good as the late war when the Americans often had the numerical advantage. So a comparison like this of contemporary models is very halpful. Well done!
Thank you for all of these wonderful videos about WW2 aircraft.
I have always been a fan of the P39 because it was different. Bell departed from the norm of fighter design doctrine of the era and came up with an airplane that was controversial. The mid-engine placement was the big difference from all other fighters of the time. The mid-engine inevitably created a fighter that had low moment of inertia in yaw and pitch. This would make the plane very nimble, but requiring a light touch on the controls. Perhaps the key to mastering the plane was gaining enough flight hours to anticipate its wicked tendencies.
Thank you fir the wonderful videos
Great video. Merry Christmas!
Holiday blessings to you, too.
Merry Christmas.
You know, recently I've been realizing that many aircraft I deemed "mediocre" are actually not bad aircraft, and in some cases dang good aircraft, like the P-40 and Buffalo. The P-39 is a new addition to this list as well.
Also, an interesting idea of a video (to me at least) is comparing the Supermarine Spitfire and the BF-109 throughout the conflict of WW2. To my knowledge, it's probably one of if not the longest running rivalry between fighter aircraft in the war.
Merry christmas! Thank you for making very interesting content!👍greetings from Sweden
Merry Christmas :)
I appreciate and enjoy the objectivity of your presentations. Incidentally, I recall reading that Pilot Chuck Yeager regarded the P-39 as his favorite ( referring I believe, to the Airacobra's handling characteristics ),
Thank you. I also read the same comment from Yeager. Unfortunately, when I made my video about the P-39, I didn't know if it was sarcastic or not, so I didn't include it. It seems it was not, so it had a lot of meaning.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and all your loved ones. Thank you for the interesting content!
A Merry Christmas and Happy 2022 to you and your loved ones! Thank you!
Thank you for your efforts. May you and yours stay well and prosper.
Enjoy your family!
Well done comparison.
RE: the early warning in New Guinea, I read in author, Michael Claringbould's series of books, oftentimes Allied pilots in Port Moresby could have up to an hour's advance notice; therefore, often they could get a nice altitude advantage, even with their Allison engines. That being said, it only helped with the initial 'bounce', after the first attack, the advantage would often pass to the Japanese; any P39 pilot who tried to make more than one pass at a Zero escort or at the bombers, or was caught trying to climb back up to the fight was asking for trouble.
Michael Claringbould is one of my favorite authors in the Pacific Theater. Thank you for your comment!
@@AllthingsWW2 I JUST discovered his books this year==He's awesome.
He is indeed!
Did the 39s ever get high enough to bounce the incoming Betty bombers? They usually (the Betties) flew at 20k feet.
@@Nghilifa If the Clarningbould books were any indication, the 39s often were able to get high enough to 'have at' the incoming Bettys==of course, once the pass was completed, they had to contend with the Zero escorts.
Great videos! Keep them coming!
Thank you! I will!
Love your channel.
Well done for adding the opinions of real pilots to this video. It really helps to understand how they performed in combat.
It must not be forgotten that the United States did not have an Air Force ( per se') in World War Two. The US had an ARMY Air Force, meaning that all air assets were to be designed to advance Army ground movement. Hence, the USAAF fighters early in the war such as the P39 and P40, early in the war we're optimized for altitudes under 15,000 feet, keeping them close to Army maneuver elements
Great work putting up the P-39 V BF109, not a match up often though about but one which happened often in reality.
Thank you!
Nice comparison. Would like to see more of this, like FW 190D9 vs P51D, Spitfire Mk3 vs MeBF 109E etc
Great assessment. Happy Christmas and a Merry New Year!
Thank you! A Happy Christmas and a Merry New Year to you too!
Another excellent video, as usual. Merry Xmas and SAFE 2022. I like the new style, as the old style lol. How about comparing the Boulton Paul Defiant and Bf 110 heavy fighter - a tough assignment indead lol
Thank you! Well, the Bf 110 is on the to-do list in 2022. Maybe I'll go around and make that tough comparison, although I'm not sure if I'm up to the challenge. I wish you a Merry Christmas and a great 2022!
Very interesting. I always thought the Zero had a slight speed advantage in level flight against the P-39. Nicely done video.
Imagine if it had gotten the turbo that was originally planned.
Basically the same powerplant as the P38 then, though it definitely would have increased weight
The P-63 King Cobra was just a P-36 with all the bugs worked out.
It ever had the same motor as the P-38 Lightning and could fight at high altitudes.
Merry Christmas! 🎄
I really enjoyed this one since the Airacobra is my favorite plane mostly because it just looks so cool!
I also always thought so. That and the varied, heavy armament appealed to my love of different weapon platforms. Two or three solid hits from the 37mm should be enough to take down any Japanese bomber
Merry Christmas and thank you!
I agree I think the Bell Cobras are probably the best looking US fighters of WW2! I always loved the look of the Bf109 and see the Cobra as USA's answer to that shape/build type
All stats, no BS. I love this channel!
Yes, both the Spitfire and the Bf 109 suffered from narrow landing gear designs. But in some ways they were quite different. The Spitfire sat lightly on its tailwheel, causing a problem with potential nose-overs. During engine run-up a mechanic had to sit on the horizontal stabilizer to keep the tail from rising off the ground! The Bf 109, in contrast, sat very heavily on its tailwheel. There was no nose-over tendency, but the weight behind the main gear gave the BF 109 rather severe directional instability on the ground. Many more Bf 109s were lost in ground-handling accidents than with the Spitfire.
Nice video. Do you think you coud do similar videos like these of other aircraft? Like example me 410 vs dehaviland mosquito vs p38 lightning?
A wonderful and balanced presentation. Thank you!
You touched on maneuverability but its more complex than most people think. Starting with turn.
Turn is a function of rate of roll and how many Gs a plane can pull without stalling or breaking. All planes have a best turning speed and none of them match so, in virtually all comparisons, each plane will win or lose at a given speed. Altitude and engine altitude rating are the same.
Climb rate is equally hard to define. If a A6M and the other two took off at the same time, pulled up their nose, and raced to 10,000 ft at their best climb speed the Zero would win running away. Lets say the Zero climbs best at 150kn and 30% and the others are about the same. What happens if they dont worry about climb rate, accelerate out to max speed, then pull up to the point where their speed almost bleeds off? They watch the Zero until he decides he needs to dive to keep up and the others use their excess speed to zoom and get on top or run away. Short of being jumped while slow, i dont think i would choose the Zero.
Finally, let's touch on "maximum power". Its as firm as mud. Different services defined it differently and it's often not, as assumed, the absolute maximum horsepower achievable. Then there's the supercharger. The Merlin with a two-stage and Allison with a turbo had comparble max power to their single-stage contemporaries but were a whole generation ahead at altitude. Then there's how long they can sustain a maximum rated, but not emergency, power. I think the evidence would support a contention that just about any American or British engine throughout the war and for reasons not reflecting the design, would last longer at maximum power, per flight or over many, than any of their equivalents.
I hope I've added to the conversation.
Cheers!
nice! I would love for you to make a videos on some of the earlier soviet planes, like the I16 (maybe I16 vs bf 109 over spain?), as my knowledge about soviet planes in particular is limited. Also I find the soviet chemical wood building material used in soviet fighters interesting, perhaps a video on that as well:)
Beautiful!
The green A6m that's being used in the vid is actually an A6m3 mod.22. A new engine Nakajima Sakae 21 but with same airframe from the A6m2 mod.21.
Nicely spotted! I was short on time and didn't have the A6M model 21 profile done, so I used the one I had. The profiles are only there for aesthetic reasons. In the first half, the P-39 was an N variant, not a D-2. The P-39 on the Soviet half was a P-39K and not the P-400.
There is some information about flying the P-39 in combat in WWII in this book: Flying American Combat Aircraft of World War II: 1939-45 by Robin Higham. Obviously, many other aircraft are covered, as well. All stories are from the pilot's who flew the aircraft.
Nice! Thank you for the suggestion. I will give it a look!
The P-39 was originally designed to use a GE turbocharger like in the P-38. In an ill-advised bout or penny-pinching the army changed to a single-speed, single-stage mechanical supercharger. This severely crippled it's high-altitude performance and negated it's interceptor role.
I don't think it was penny pinching so much as a supply problem. The priority for turbocharger production was to supply bombers, and the material required for the turbine blades was limited.
I wonder what the weight of the very long drive shaft of the P-39 is? That has to be a serious weight penalty. Also refusing to wear a parachute over enemy territory reflects a fatalistic and negative outlook on life. No wonder Japan rapidly lost all their best pilots. Hubristic pride can be suicidal. Life is a wonderous gift and shouldn't tossed away over vanity. Merry Christmas.
I don’t think the drive shaft is that big a penalty, upstream of the gearbox so higher rpm and lower torque, without knowing definitely, most probably a large diameter tube rather than a solid shaft.
In the beginning, many pilots were afraid of the driveshaft passing under their feet. It seems it never became a problem. About its weight, I'm sorry, but I don't know how much it was. Merry Christmas!
Nice job.
It's interesting,
US Army pilots: get rid of this slow deadly crate.
Soviet pilots: comrade, give us more of these amazing modern fighters!
no, not really. Just because the Soviets had better success with the P39 than the US did doesn't mean they held them in high regards. As soon as they could they dropped the P39's for a homegrown fighter (Yak's, La5/7's, etc). The P39 didn't really offer much that the Soviets didn't already have except quantity. The needed more fighters and used everything given to them to varying degrees of success.
@@SmokinLoon5150 Someone might drop the fact of Pokryshkin keeping P-39s in his unit (9th GIAD) despite being able to switch to La-7 or Yak-3.
But to break the point: why would he? The battle of Berlin was about to begin, and switching the technical base of 3 whole regiments would take the whole unit out of fighting (and all of the three regiments were an asset to all operations they took part in since 1943, having a tremendous number of aces).
And when it came to the picture of P-39, it was questionable even among the soviet pilots. It was usually loved by the ones who flew air defense missions (most commonly bomber interception) and disliked by the others who had to cover Il-2s (where acceleration and maneuverability mattered the most).
Some Yak pilot even recalled having to defend P-39s from Bf.109s after the cobras were forced down by the germans and joined a flock of Il-2s returning from a mission. He called 39's "flying irons" at lower altitudes, where attacker escort missions were usually held.
Did you read my previous comments
About doing certain aircraft in the same theatre .
I think it works well as you have good graphics etc .
Looking forward to 2022 to see your
Next videos .
Take care and be safe and sane 👍
Hey, there. I did read your comment. Sorry, but I didn't have time to answer it. I'm not sure if I entirely understand you. Could you please elaborate a bit further on your suggestion? Do you mean making a whole video about a specific theater in a fixed time period? Let's say the Eastern Front in January 1942, and make a comparison between all the aircraft present. Thank you very much for the suggestion!
@@AllthingsWW2 would be a good idea or Finland air war 1941/42
Or the Caucasus 1942 lots of different aircraft not the usual
Me109 /Lagg/Mig3 etc
Lot's of Russian flyboats used in the campaign also Finnish bomber
Aircraft Fokker CV Blenheim even
A couple bulldogs
It's just something different fro the usual stuff
Or even Japanese Russia conflict of
1945 would be good topic .
Have a good new year and Christmas in my case on the 7th.
☀️👍
P-39 Airacobra is my #1 favorite WWII fighter. P is for pursuit and really not a true fighter in a sense. Not having a super until later on, it was damn fast and plenty of fire power. I think the Allison is just as good as those Merlins. Unlike the Russians who flew the 39, they knew the aircraft whereas American pilots didn't by what was quoted here. The 39s over Russia tore the Luftwaffe a new one as stats prove. Those pilots knew their aircraft well, and exploited it.
Happy new year
Thank you, you too!
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas!
Well done.
Thank you!
Russians liked aerocobra more than most lend lease fighters.
The P39 was ordered as a low alt bomber interceptor to compliment the high alt P38, also ordered as a bomber interceptor.
The 109 and Zero were ordered as air superiority fighters.
As I understand it.
Regarding the armament of the P-39, I’m not sure that the big 37 mm cannon was much use in a dogfight against a Zero. It was a very slow firing weapon and had a very low muzzle velocity compared to the .50 cal machine gun, meaning the shell would begin to drop a short time after leaving the barrel, making scoring hits at range difficult.
While the 37 mm cannon would be absolutely devastating at close range in level flight, landing hits while pulling lead in a turn fight would be extremely difficult. The big gun was of much more value against enemy bombers than it was against the Zero.
If I were a P-39 pilot, I would use the cannon in an initial bounce, and if I caught a Zero by surprise from directly behind - but if I had to pull any kind of lead to hit the target, I would just use the machine guns only.
If I remember right, one of the things the soviet pilots loved the most about the P-39 was the 37mm cannon. As a general rule they tend to fly very close to their opponents reducing the disadvantage of a cannon having low velocity.
It was initially designed to be a short-range high altitude bomber interceptor (1937-1939) so the 37 mm M4 cannon was its chief asset. Moreover, as other commentators stated a GE-turbo was intended for high altitude performance. Even earlier was the Allison two-stage supercharger idea, but that idea was ignored by the then USAAC.
Great video. I like the P-39 even though it wasn't a great plane. Too bad they didn't add the 2 stage supercharger for better high altitude performance. I understand the big 37mm cannon also filled the cockpit with smoke when fired. I wish we knew how many planes got shot down with the 37mm.
Merry christmas, never enough about the cobra
Merry Christmas to you too!
Another important part is the pilot's training. In first times of WW2, the Japanese pilots are better than most of their counterparts, but late the situation changed dramatically. Probably comparing best trained American pilots the difference were lower.
Something to note is the Zero wasn't lightly armoured, it was poorly armoured. Meaning the armour was one coating all over the plane, instead of thicker coats in areas where it mattered.
It would be interesting to know what differences the P-63 Kingcobra had over the P-39 in Soviet service.
in truth a lot of planes had poor ground handling the but BF-109 seems to get this rap a lot as it was most certainly true and yet at the same time many planes like the spitefire also had poor ground handling it's just a common feature of small fighters of the time. Yet without a doubt that tricycle landing gear was a great idea
In the future, I will probably make a whole video about the P-63. Thank you for the suggestion!
@@mikepette4422 The F4F Wildcat also had poor ground handling on airfields, its undercarriage was very narrow. It worked well on carriers though, which obviously was the environment it was designed to operate from.
Got an ad before the vid so quick question before I actually watch it. Why the P-39? Wouldn't a better comparison be the P-51 or P-38?
Once the allison engines were approved to run at higher manifold pressures the Cobra became an absolute monster
Hard to believe the P39 had higher drag than the Zero. P39 was so much more sleek, plus I'd think the larger wings of the zero would add to its drag.
yeah especially if you don't look at the wings the zero is really not meant for high speed fighting
Hey, there. Yes, I also found it quite unbelievable. For me, the largest part of the surprise came from the fact that the Zero had a radial engine with a large frontal surface. But I will quote from "Fighter Combat Study, No.1 - The Curtiss P-40C Tomahawk vs. the Mitsubishi A6M2 Model 21 Zero-Sen".
"How can the Zero-Sen, with a bulky radial engine, be cleaner than a P-40 with a liquid-cooled engine? To begin with, the Zero-Sen's engine was nicely cowled, with a large spinner. It's wing was exceptionally clean and the greatest attention was paid to wing and tail fillets."
There are several more considerations and graphics dealing with this matter. Naturally, this was a comparison against a P-40. The P-39's drag value came from a different study. Thank you for your comment.
You'd be surprised what causes drag and what doesn't...
The Fw190 had incredibly low drag and was even lower than the Spitfire!
This is because a single open air cooled area overall causes less drag than having multiple areas of lesser drag (think wings).
The Spitfire had all sorts of coolers/rads/induction ports/exhaust tips erc sticking out.
The 190 just has the one opening at the front.
The zero is not any different here... aircooled and taking in all the air it needs in one big spot.
The P39 however has openings on both wings, and a massive box opening above the engine and a 40mm hole in the prop hub centre.
The zero has a more aerodynamic prop hub despite having the aircooled nose.
Its also a smaller plane and takes up less area in general ( although the P39 isn't as big as the p63 its still bigger than a Zero)
@@AllthingsWW2 Thanks so much for elaborating. Yes, exactly. In looking at both planes in profile, the P39 with its center-rear mounted engine, had a nose resembling a rifle bullet. The nose of the Zero is somewhat blunt by comparison. But I suppose there are many other factors going into the calculations.
@@GregoryShtevensh Good points. Lots of scoops, not good for keeping drag down. And the one 190 only had the one big opening behind the prop to pull in(!) air to provide all the cooling plus engine/supercharger intake. That and the wings were kinda small.
Excellent content as always. I celebrate your research and objectivity--I've never sensed any nationalism or other favoritism in your appraisals and comparisons.
Regardless of its perceived flaws by pilots in the Western theater, the Airacobra seemed a solid choice for those flying at the lower altitudes of the Eastern and Pacific fronts.
In Suburo Sakai's book Samurai, he claimed Japanese fighter pilots, didn't wear parachutes, because the pilots felt they were too restrictive.
Who here would choose to fly the Zero, against a P-39? AT THAT TIME the P-39 had about a 1:1 kill ratio, but this was in due to bad tactics, not the plane, and novice Americans flying against more experienced Japanese. This was before the boom-and-zoom tactics were taught, however. With radar warning (as mentioned), and much better dive speeds, AND THE KNOWLEDGE NOT TO DOG-FIGHT, I think the P-39 was much better in this theater. But a P-39 who tried to dogfight would probably lose. What's interesting is that the question is not the Zero pilot's skill. There's no choice the Zero pilot can make to win the fight. Instead it depends on the Cobra pilot's understanding.
I have always wondered about the poor rep of the P-39. The performance numbers always seemed solid, even without the Turbocharger. Certainly the Japanese and Germans having years more experience had to have had an effect.
It depends on the pilot. Yeager used to fly so called inferior aircraft against so called superior aircraft and defeat them
Die P39 Airacobra war ursprünglich mit Abgas-Turbolader und Ladeluftkühlern gedacht. In dieser Ausführung hätte sie das Zeug zum besten Jäger des Krieges gehabt. Größte Pluspunkte: Das Bugradfahrwerk und die Kanone. Zum Vergleich hatte die BF109 traurige Sichtverhältnisse und die schrägstehenden Fahrwerksräder. Die nur geradeaus laufen, wenn das Heckrad am Boden ist. Befindet sich das Flugzeug in Fluglage, zeigen die Räder nach innen. Kommt es da zum Bodenkontakt, ist das Flugzeug verloren, und der Pilot überlebt nur mit viel Glück. Warum diese tödliche Fehlkonstruktion fast 34000 mal gebaut wurde, bleibt mir unverständlich.
Thank you for your comment. Happy Christmas.
Sven,
Notice a disturbing similarity of the silhouette of Me 309 to P-39. And the three-point landing gears...
I disagree that the P39 had better armament... The 12.7mm M2s are definitely a larger calibre, but the German MG17 is pushing out 1200rpm vs the M2s 750rpm.
The 37mm HE shell is larger and heavier, but fires at about 150rom vs Germany's MG151-20 pushing out between 650 to 750rpm depending on tuning.
The amount of explosive filler in the HE mineshell was higher than the P39s HE 37mm! And had better ballistics and a better ROF!
Basically what I'm saying is that for air combat, the MG151-20 is the better Cannon!
The M2 .50cals on the P39 however are definitely better than the German MG17s but only on models that carry 4 guns!
The models that carry 2 guns do NOT have much more if anymore firepower than x2 MG17s!
There's more lead overall and more armour piercing capability and range however so it's still got to go to the P39 in machine guns at least! But not in cannon - at least not purely against other air targets anyway (probably much better against ground vehicles however)
Hey there. Please note that in that comparison, the P-39 was the Airacobra Mk I, also known as the P-400. It was the British version, armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon. I agree that the 37 mm cannon had in general bad ballistics, a poor fire rate, and was supplied to the Soviets without armor-piercing rounds (although arguably you wouldn't need them to shoot at a Bf 109 with it). In my opinion, the two.50 caliber machine guns are a superior armament to the two German MG17s. But, to be honest, I did forget to consider their effective range, and that might be a mistake.
Thank you for the comment, and I hope you enjoyed the video besides this point.
@@AllthingsWW2 absolutely did!
The 37mm HE would be enough to knock out a Bf109 I agree.
But the Mineshell concept used by Germany meant even more explosive filler in a 20mm German HE then you would get in the M4 37mm HE shell.
It would take a couple of good shots however vs 1 good shot from the 37mm.
But where one hits, a few are hitting due to rate of fire...
The best aces just got in close before using the Cannon so either would work with a good pilot... But purely in dogfights, I think the Mg151-20 is about as good as you get.
I don't think the Early Hispano cannons really were as good, but the later 1942 and 1943 versions definitely were as good (different however) and weren'tas prone to jamming.
And my point about range was that the M2 .50 had excellent range so would be definitely better than the Mg17 over range... at short distance the high ROF of the MG17 (at least gun for gun) would make up for the pathetic. 30calibre that was at the time, considered too weak already and was being replaced by Mg131 13mm guns with a 900rpm IAI bullet that exploded on impact-turning the Mg131 into a 13mm cannon basically.
The M2 .50cal is arguably the best MG of WW2!
Especially when the API-T M20 rounds were introduced such as on the P47's... However unfortunately the P39 used less effective (but still effective) rounds.
Perhaps Id say that prior to the MG131s, they had about equivalent armaments with the edge on cannon going to Germany/109 and the edge on MGs going to Russia/P39... But that's only my opinion...
Greatly enjoyed the video though mate as well as these kinds of discussions!!
Man you gonna give an old boy a woody with that sleek s***!
In the US, the P39 is generally considered a failure but at lower altitudes it could hold its own against its competition. I think part of the problem was US tactics at the start of WWII were idiotic because they did not use the strengths of each plane to an advantage. The F4F Wildcat suffered to some extent with this.
What about the lightened p39N with 1400 hp vs bf-109?
The P-39 became the king cobra, with a longer fuselage it reduced the spin problem.. Frome what I have read, you had to know how to fly it etc
Hi m8 can you make a video on the pe3 ot the pe 2?
Hey, there. I'll try to get to the Pe-2 in 2022. But before that, I'll cover the Yak-1 and the La-5 from the Soviet side. Merry Christmas!
@@AllthingsWW2 thanks
Merry Christmas
All in all, I believe the P39 Airacobra's sour reputation was unwarranted and unjust. Plus it seems as if the army airforce purposely prevented the engine from having it's full potential.
Merry Christmas. The last thing you would want is a dogfight, that means you were surprised and lost the initiative.
Merry Christmas to you too!
From what I've read, most US pilots definitely did not like the P-39. Even brand new pilots were very disappointed when they were assigned to fly it.
I agree there seems to be this push lately to rewrite history and I am always wary of this as it usually comes at the expense of reality. It was a situational aircraft which isn't a good thing so frankly gimme almost anything else.
US and British pilots flying the P-39 had been trained to dogfight with the enemy, and this wasn’t the P-39’s strong point against the Zero, so that’s why they didn’t like it. Only wartime experience taught them the value of boom and zoom.
So it’s not the fault of the P-39 itself, the problem was inadequate pilot training. (A bad workman always blames his tools…)
Curious if the later A6M's were more of a fair fight for the P-39
Bf109 would be my choice.
What about the fw-190
3:25 I'd say the armor and self-sealing fuel tanks don't get enough credit in your mix, and range perhaps too much. Range was really key strategically, but doesn't help once you start fighting. Given 1) advance notice from ground radar, allowing them to climb high (you mention this), 2) Cobra's much better dive speed (you left this out), and 3) better armament, I think a WELL-informed P-39 pilot, who knew to dive through Zero formations and not dog-fight, would probably have a decided advantage. A BADLY-informed P-39 pilot, who tried to dogfight a zero, would be equal at best, or more likely lose. In early 1942, I don't think US fighter pilots yet knew scientifically how to beat the Zeros every time. But the resulting losses or at best tie, was a factor of the tactics, not the aircraft. Give me a choice today and I'd fly the P-39 in this fight, for sure.
The p39 actually had 60 rounds of 37mm
the p39s entire wing was filled with gas. the bf109 would probably win the resilience test due to the wings not catching fire if hit.
At sea lvl, the F-4 could fly with 530-540 km/h IRL.
Same on P-39 (L).
They always should have removed the big gun on the p39 and put a lighter gun in it. extend the wings and use a 2 stage super charger or turbocharger . it would have been superior to alot of other aircraft....
The cannon was what the plane was designed around. Taking it out would negate the whole idea behind the mid mounted engine. The redesigned P-63 King Cobra was the answer for the deficiencies of the P-39 and it was designed and produced with Russian input (since they were the primary customer). The later version was a formidable aircraft in the Eastern Front environment and was well though of by Soviet pilots. The P-63 was not supposed to be sent to the German front by treaty (it was supposed to be used against Japan) but that agreement was basically ignored and they replaced P-39s against Germany.
The big 37 mm cannon was very useful against enemy bombers - and the P-39 was an interceptor, so destroying bombers is what it was designed to do.
MITSUBISHI A6M5 ZEKE VS bell P63 kingcobra no match GRUMMAN F6F_3 HELLCAT VS A6M5 ZEKE great turkey shot of 1944 a feel day for HELLCAT
During early development the XP-39 had the turbo-supercharger removed from it's Allison V-1710 powerplant causing power to drop drastically. This resulted in an extreme loss of top speed, high altitude, and vertical performance compared to the A6M and Bf-109 that would become the main adversary of the P-39 early in the war. The XP-39 also had no armament, once installed on production versions, the four 50cal. machine guns along with the massive and extremely heavy 37mm cannon (on early U.S. models of the P-39) decreased the performance even more with the deletion of the turbo-supercharger.
Howdy. A big problem was that the Cobra just wasn't quite big enough to keep the turbo. The main reason for the Cobra's disadvantages was it was simply too heavy for such a small plane. I don't think the, slightly larger, P-63 or P-51 would.even manage. The two turbo equipped fighters that did get into service were huge by comparison because they were designed around the powerplants and were big enough to carry the extra weight.
I think the Cobra ended up in its best role, low altitude offensive fighter, and needs no excuses for its record right till the end of the war.
It also makes a fantastic RC model. The best WWII fighter. I've built four, from 36"-80" span, and all of them fly beautifully. I've built and flown countless model fighters since 1971. The P-47, P-38, and Me 110 are also "pilot's airplanes" but every other one I've flown has at least one nasty habit.
Anyway. I hope you don't mind me replying to an old comment but it's a favorite subject of mine.
Cheers!
The p39 was a good tank buster.
The P-39 had strengths the Me-109 didn't and the Zero had strengths and weaknesses not shared by the others. OK, got it.
.50 caliber is inches not millimeters.
What is P-400?
The P-400s were the P-39s that were produced to British standards (with the 20mm Hispano Cannon, etc.) and then the British refused. They stayed in American use with the P-400 designation to be told apart from the P-39s.
Here is my video on the P-39, if you wish to see it in further detail.
ua-cam.com/video/XS0GZPPmFlQ/v-deo.html
@@AllthingsWW2 nope... its P-40 with Zero on its tale ;)
Aircobras might as well stay on the ground
The 0 had 0 armor
If flown "by the book", the P-39 was a sitting duck and a deathtrap. If flown intelligently by an experienced pilot, different story. The Americans learned, to their expense, that you did not "dogfight" with the Japanese. Their aircraft and their training were optimized for this and to do so was to play according to their rules.
It’s remarkable that the Russians took a plane that really nobody wanted, and turned it to their advantage. That says something about the Russians. Glad at least some of the lend lease aircraft helped them out.
A6m is the best airplane
The cobra helped the USSR
to dive was the best solution for to escape or to shoot a zero , dont forget that the nippon pilots was best than the USAAF pilots and the Bell P39 is better than the curtiss P40 if the UK pilots didnt like this fighter , the soviet the french of FAFL even the italian of the colbeligerante régia aeronautica loved this plane for it resilience and it armament this plane began a good fighter bomber the USAAF needed P47 and P51 the RAF had the spit MIX the typhoon , but over the south front or the east front the P39 did the job .
It's apple or oranges, put an inferior plane in the hands of experienced pilot against a rookie in better plane, experience wins, majority of luftwaffe aces were experienced and slaughtered soviet rookies in no matter what plane they were in, I think that the German aces in the west were better, they were against better pilots
Se la Luftwaffe avesse avuto gli Zero avrebbe vinto la Battaglia di Inghilterra con tutto il rispetto per il Messerschmitt 109 uno dei migliori in assoluto della guerra
Buon punto!
L' unico "difetto" del caccia tedesco era la scarsa autonomia per cui i bombardieri erano costretti a volare senza protezione sui cieli inglesi
@@simonebellocci1963 Ovviamente! Ma mentre il Bf 109E (Emil) aveva questo difetto aveva alcuni altri inconvenienti. Soprattutto quello sperimentato dai piloti durante l'atterraggio dopo aver completato con successo la loro missione...
@@carcharinus6367 Hai ragione ma lo Spitfire britannico non era nettamente superiore all' Emil ed i piloti tedeschi vantavano maggiore esperienza dei giovani britannici. Penso a Galland o Moelders o Hans Hahn
@@simonebellocci1963 `E vero, ma come probabilmente ricorderete - esattamente "Dolfo" Galland, quando Goering glielo chiedeva - di cosa avete piu` bisogno in questo momento? - rispose semplicemente: almeno due squadroni di Spitfire! Con quello che (in un certo senso) Reichsmarschall un po' furioso
the 109 would still be on top. bc he can outclimb his enemy and chose the fights at wish. ALT adv / energy adv is king, and the 109 was unmatched at this time and place.
( considering equal skilled pilots and a 1v1 situation )
Why bother ?
I'm sorry, I don't get this comment.
@@AllthingsWW2 Sorry that was a bit abrupt of me. What I meant was in reality these planes did not regularly meet each other and certainly not enough to change the course of the war in either theatre. But I did enjoy their comparisons. What is most interesting is that because the Bell was rejected by it's origin country they were mostly sent to Russia where they were of some use especially as Russia's home grown aircraft types were not much of a threat to the luftwaffe having poor armament and plywood construction. It also beggers a better question why did Bell then produce the King Cobra??
The Bf 109 was by far superior! aircobra was one of the worsts aircraft from the ww2.