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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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)
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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!
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.
@@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?
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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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)
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…!
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.
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.
@@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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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 Hi Greg! This might interest you (if you haven't got it already): ua-cam.com/video/AZY_VFVI5v0/v-deo.html Greetings from Holland!
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-
Thanks Greg. You make me like the Airacobra even more. One of the things I remember Chris from Military Aviation History and Justin Pike talk about the Airacobras that were flying early in the war over New Guinea, was that the aircaft had a lot of armour.
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 .
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.
@@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.
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. 🇺🇸
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.
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.
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
@@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 🇺🇸 🤠
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 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.
👍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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 🇺🇸 🤠
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.
I love the P-39. I feel it was ahead of its time. Looks like something from the late 40s rather than from the late 30s. The long, narrow nose section makes it look almost like a turboprop fighter.
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!
Your comment on the engine trying to roll the airplane reminded me of something my dad told me. He grew up on an airport and was in charge of washing the planes. He had to move a Corsair over to the hose, the pilot told him not to get anywhere near full power. Apparently a Corsair at full power, zero airspeed, and no armaments will roll right over.
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,"
Greg, the story I've heard about the XP-39's turbo was that the Army changed their mind about the plane's role and decided the Airacobra should be a low altitude ground support type. Obviously the turbo would be dead weight in that role, so they insisted that Bell remove it - and Bell complied under protest. I do not know why the Army would have had such a change of heart re: the XP-39 and not the XP-38, unless it was just that they saw more potential in Lockheed's big twin - which did fly first, and was even faster than the XP-39. I take it you didn't find any evidence of this in the primary sources? In any case, thank you for another very informative video.
I have heard that story, that it was the Army that asked for the change. However there are primary source documents that dispute that, so I don't know what the truth is. I haven't found a smoking gun on this subject.
To your point my wife’s uncle was trained as a fighter-bomber pilot in a P39 (439 Sqn), but transitioned to P47s before going to Europe. He said the 37mm round looked like a pineapple going down range. Must have had good eyesight. Also trained on Dauntless dive bombers, A24s.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Birch Matthews in "Cobra" says it was kind of threefold. GE was having problems with supercharger production, GM wanted to get into high production on the Allison to start recouping development costs and Bell, always underfunded, was desperate for a large production order. In those days companies paid development costs out of their pockets
P39 was ahead of it's time in some ways... Thank you for such a detailed approach as always. Waiting for another video on this topec... P39 comparison to east front airplanes and how the soviets did it...
Thanks Greg! Can you do an episode or a few, on the Hawker Tempest/Typhoon fighters and engines? I always thought they were cool but I had no idea about their engines. Just stumbled upon some info on the Napier Sabre, can't believe I'd never heard of it before, like the first time I learned about the BRM H16
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
As a total ignoramus on the subject of plane design, I’ve wondered why Bell could not have made the Airacobra a bit longer to accomodate the turbo and intercooler and perhaps a bit of fuel?Thanks for all of your videos.
@@mpetersen6 1946. Bell (and later Boeing) test pilot Tex Johnston beat North American test pilot George Welch flying a P-51, and Lockheed test pilot Tony LeVier flying a P-38.
Thanks for another great one. New subscriber working my way through. There was a good section about the tumbling problem in Tex Johnston's book, who was a Bell company test pilot before his Boeing fame. He said they tried and tried to reproduce this tumbling problem at Bell, and could not; it flew just fine. Finally they brought in someone from a squadron where it had this reputation, who was gonna show them. And lo and behold, he couldn't either. It turned out that the manual specified ballast to be put in the nose if it was flown without ammo, but this was commonly not followed. So this nasty famous problem it had, came simply from being flown aft of the CG limit, same as you would expect from any airplane.
Hi Greg, many months ago i think it was the FW190 aircraft, i mentioned my thoughts on why the Germans had leather straps fitted to the rudder controls. My hypotheses was that given the piilots flat sitting position, this gave them greater leverage in controlling the rudder by both pushing on the left and pulling up on the right. This i have seen confirmed by watching the rudder operation in the Hellcat. No straps were fitted but provision was made on the rudder control where a foot could be slid under each pedal for achieving the same thing..
Many years ago I talked with an old Marine who had served on Guadalcanal, He said, "I dont understand how a plane that saved us so many times, was taken out of service ? He said "so many times it knocked out Jap hard points,we could here them screaming".
That would be interesting but in the end too little, too late. Jets were already on the way. As far as I know the only use made of the P-63 by the USAAF in WWII was as an "interceptor" used by squadrons "attacking" B-29s. These B-29s were used by training units to train gunners. These P-63 carried addition armor while the gunners were using .50 BMG ammunition with frangible bullets that would break up in impact causing sparks to show hits. The P-63s were referred to as pinballs.
On the French aerobatic airplane ARS-300, moving the pilot forward compared to an Extra-300 for exemple, was a design criteria to reduce pilot stress under Gs
Thanks for another great video. I read about the p-39 being used post-war in air racing--and doing really well. Would definitely be interested in a P-63 video!
The P-39 won the 1946 National Air Race and was leading the1947 race when the engine blew on the final circuit. That proves that all the P-39 needed was more HP and a gear driven supercharger. I had a single speed supercharger so why not a two speed? Put a Packard Merlin in it and see how it does at altitude. The P-39 airframe was preferred over the P-63 for air racing.
When Bob Hoover and Chuck Yeager say the P-39 was a fine airplane, it must be so. It was an unusual airplane and interesting to look at, I really enjoyed this video.
Neither Charles Yeager nor Bob Hoover EVER flew the P-39 in COMBAT ! If they had, their opinion of the AirCobra might have been much different - it simply could not compete with enemy aircraft in combat. The pilots who DID fly the P-39 in combat are almost unanimous: It wasnt a Cobra, it was a Turkey !
@@paulrward ~ Google: Russia Beyond -- Why did Soviet aces adore this U.S. fighter? -- "The hard-to-handle but effective P-39 was designed for the best of the best, and served mainly in the guards units. Alexander Pokryshkin, Grigory Rechkalov, Alexander Klubov, Nikolai Gulaev, the brothers Dmitry and Boris Glinka, and other top Soviet aces all flew the American fighter. Pokryshkin, the second highest-scoring of all Allied fighter pilots, made 48 of his 59 kills with it, and Rechkalov 50 of 56. Even when faster and more maneuverable aircraft began to enter service with the Soviet Air Force toward the end of the war, many Soviet pilots remained faithful to their beloved Airacobra, which never let them down."
@@martentrudeau6948 Soviet WW2 fighters were, to a great extent, made from Steel and Plywood - Aluminum was in short supply in the USSR, especially Duraluminum. Also, Soviet Engines, while adequate for tractors, often lacked the quality necessary for demanding aircraft applications - engine failures were common, and the front line Soviet Fighters, Yak 3 to 9, LaGG 1, 2, and 5, and MiG 3, had severe handling problems that made them almost as dangerous to their own pilots than they were to the enemy. Remember: Dozens of Luftwaffe Aces shot down more than 100 aircraft each, all on the Eastern Front ! Compared with the low quality Soviet Fighters, the P-39 would have seemed an improvement. But compared with the P-40, the AirCobra was a slug. Heavy, unmaneurverable, with ( despite Greg's video ) rather viscious stall and spin characteristics, the AirCobra made more Imperial Japanese pilots into Aces than any other aircraft.
@@paulrward There are a number of Russian aces who would have disagreed with you I think. It didn't fit the needs of the USAAC as they developed but it fit the Eastern Front conditions quite well. The US opinions were formed by US pilots from the US perspective and it wasn't really until the 90's that the Russian pilot's stories became available in the West
Ngl, I’ve been partial to this plane for awhile. I’ve got a long list of favorites, but this is definitely a favorite “unloved” plane of mine. Gets an unfair reputation
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!
IIRC, Chuck Yeager wrote in his autobiography that he witnessed several P-39's stall out and enter flat spins during hard maneuvers AFTER expending all their 37mm ammunition. Apparently the absence of all those heavy 37mm shells really screwed up the CG that was hard to trim out in the middle of a dogfight.
Greg, will you ever make a video about the Studebaker Avanti? It was offered with a Paxton supercharger. Also I would love to see you talk about the Jensen Interceptor and it’s optional Ferguson Formula permanent all-wheel-drive system.
Thanks for the video. For years I have suffered much persecution and ridicule for choosing the P-39 as my top, favourite WW2 fighters... I am now vindicated!!! 🏴☠️🏴☠️🔧🏴☠️🏴☠️
Hello Greg, I 'm not sure I agree that the fuselage would have to be made heavier to handle tortional load. The load goes from propeller, to shaft, to engine, to engine mounts, to fuselage and finally to wings during flight, or to landing gear on the ground. The part of the fuselage structure between the engine mounts and the wings handles the load. On the P39 that part is much shorter and handles the load much better anyway. The part of the fuselage forward of the mounts towards the propeller plays no part. Thank you for the time and effort you put into this, your channel is gold
I have headphones with the Apple spatial stuff and your voice seems to be coming almost from behind me and to the right. Probably an issue with Apple though; just thought I would put it down if it is a fixable audio issue or anyone else notices. Great video, and such a beautiful aircraft! I am always impressed by Bell's designs, even the awkward and... interesting, Airacuda
The audio balance is a little bit off. It's balanced to the right just a bit, but it's not just volume shift, the left is a bit basy, while the right holds the higher pitches. So it sounds a bit weird, and is hard to correct on our end. :/
My great uncle once said something about the p39 being nimble at lower speeds. The pilot near the center of gravity thing made me remember that. Maybe it felt like it handled better than it did with the pilot having that feeling of pivoting into turns.
1930's aerodynamics, as we see here, still had a lot based on "looks" rather than real testing. Engine placement was largely irrelevant since the CG and CL still have to be within the same margins. I think you nailed it when teh idea of a slender nose section was overcome by high drag of the turbocharger placement and lack of full gear retraction. Basically since it was no better performance wise, it made sense NOT to produce it in large numbers. Better to have fleets of cheap/robust radial engined planes than introducing another type for no gain,
Would be really interested in a video about the French C.714. It has an air-cooled inline engine and I once read that it´s one of the most aerodynamic planes of the war.
High G-onset rate in pitch is generally considered a bad thing. The F-16C reduced the size of the horizontal stabs because the A model put guys to sleep. The P-39 wouldn’t be stronger than the pilot, but onset rate is still a problem. The Tweet had a very quick onset rate, again, not useful since the brain needs time to adjust blood pressure for pitch, but not roll. Fast G onset just puts you out.
It hadn't occured to me they would have a reinforced nose to deal with the torque of the engine compared to a front engine plane. A lot of great engineering for such an early design.
Look at the ME-309 for a nose gear, front engine with cannon through the the nose. Not picking knits here as the ME-309 was never a production aircraft but that layout was unique.
Greg: Thanks for another great video on the P-39. I would like to see a video on the Tempest and Napier Sabre sleeve valve engine. I find this engine to be vastly overlooked as a good design that needed more development. Very similar problems with the need for more work on the supercharger/turbocharger boost problems to see the full potential.
Don't say that to my grandfather - he hated those things. They caught fire, they smashed themselves to fragments on a cold soak start, they leaked oil, fuel and anything else worse than a Royal Oilfield. The Stag v8 in original form had a better survival rate.
@@rosiehawtrey Every new engine combination has teething troubles. By mid 1944 the Tempest was a very effective aircraft. I have always liked the P-39 & P-63. But, many American pilots hated them.
there was an old farmer that told me once he flew one of these in WW2 . His biggest remark was " That was the first plane I flew with seat belts and fist plane I crash landed sure was glad it had safety belts" lol always wanted to quiz him more about it
Sitting close to CG vs far from CG does affect the pilot’s G-loading. How much, depends on the radius of the pitch movement. Fighter jets with high TAS the effect is much less than slower prop planes. One example is pulling G’s with a two seater Extra 300. Front seat G-meter reads more than rear seat.
One thing a lot of people miss when comparing Super Chargers and Turbo Chargers is. A Turbo’s Drive pressure and how it helps bearings and the rotating assembly. In the high horse power Alcohol burning Hemi world when running a Roots ,Screw , or Centrifugal type super charger. It will eat rod and main bearings each run when your running it hard. The same motor with Turbos will make 20-30 runs with out even checking the bearings.
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.
Thank you for your service
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.
P39 also might have been loved in the Eastern front. It would have shredded German attack aircraft and medium bombers.
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.
@@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.
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.
Yes. Please.
I just love how the Airacobra looks. Such a beautiful machine.
I'd really like to hear more about her.
Almost elegant, especially when compared to the P-47.
@@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)
@@kainhall 2 lovely, chunky brick sh*t houses that also got/get the job done.
P63 is even better looking!
@@kainhall You are so right. I love the Warthog's look "Only a mother could like" lol). Same with the Jug
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.
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.
@@SoloRenegade P47 and P38 effectively proved that manoeuvrability was far less important than speed and fire-power.
@@davidelliott5843 Absolutely, but this point was actually proven even before that with the Hawker Hart bomber.
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.
@@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.
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!
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.
@@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?
True that.
Respect to your father.
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.
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
And you won’t tell us what’s number two? Way to leave me hanging
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.
@@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.
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.
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)
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…!
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.
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.
@@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
The shaft drive experience must have been useful for Bell's subsequent helicopter building career.
Excellent point.
Spectacular observation.
Amazing remark.
@@stewpacalypse7104astute comment.
I'd have never thought about that. Maybe the P-39 saved some early helicopter pilots' lives.
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.
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.
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!
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.
It would be awesome to have an analysis of the Soviet experience. They loved the plane and it was highly successful
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.
They also tended to end up in lower altitude engagements.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
I read in Chuck Yeager’s autobio that he really liked the P-38. Great vid!
IIRC, he wrote that he would have happily gone to war in the P-39.
@@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.
To those of us who are fascinated by this subject matter, your videos are always a treat. You can learn so much.
My late father would have thoroughly enjoyed this excellent presentation. He was a P-39 pilot. He also flew P-38’s.
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?
@@MyRCJourney yes 👆 this!...from Wyoming USA 🇺🇸 🤠
@@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.
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.
@@DavidRLentzagreed
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.
Thanks Carl, I'm glad you liked it.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Hi Greg! This might interest you (if you haven't got it already):
ua-cam.com/video/AZY_VFVI5v0/v-deo.html
Greetings from Holland!
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-
Thanks Greg. You make me like the Airacobra even more. One of the things I remember Chris from Military Aviation History and Justin Pike talk about the Airacobras that were flying early in the war over New Guinea, was that the aircaft had a lot of armour.
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 .
Chuck Yeager really rated it too and I’d take their opinions over any ‘armchair aviators’ any day.
He actually took it up after a bell engineer condemned it and put on an acrobatic display....
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.
@@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.
@@neilbone9490 Bob Hoover liked it, too.
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. 🇺🇸
My favourite WW2 plane (apart from the doors). Appreciate the effort explaining why it wasn't going to achieve its full potential.
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.
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.
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
Yes, a lot of problems can be solved by making the plane bigger, and very often that was the solution used.
@@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 🇺🇸 🤠
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 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.
Cars use superchargers too (at Very low altitude)
Only if you have not understood aeroplane supercharging. Greg made this clear many times.
👍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.
They didn’t appreciate the drag from small intakes and ducts and unfaired abrupt venturi effects.
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.
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.
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.
I believe there were explosive bolts or something else to quickly bail out of the later variants of the Airacobra.
@@SoloRenegade It had it
The doors could be jettisoned in an emergency.
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.
@yo yo What did he get wrong?
@yo yo So you're saying the engine is not trying to rotate the airframe at all? Just the propeller?
@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.
@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?
@yo yo That argument was about needing more of the fuselage reinforced because of the unusual engine placement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 🇺🇸 🤠
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.
P-400s had incompatible oxygen equipment that the USAAF could not use.
I love the P-39. I feel it was ahead of its time. Looks like something from the late 40s rather than from the late 30s. The long, narrow nose section makes it look almost like a turboprop fighter.
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!
Your comment on the engine trying to roll the airplane reminded me of something my dad told me. He grew up on an airport and was in charge of washing the planes. He had to move a Corsair over to the hose, the pilot told him not to get anywhere near full power. Apparently a Corsair at full power, zero airspeed, and no armaments will roll right over.
With engineers this good it's no wonder they were the ones to break the sound barrier.
Excellent content Greg. The P39 has not been treated kindly by the internet. As you reiterate, it was product of its times.
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,"
Have to check this out. Thanks!
Saw a P-39 at an airshow once. It's performance at low altitude was quite impressive.
Love the channel Greg you always produce some of the best content online!
UPS crew member here. Love your videos. Never stop
Greg, the story I've heard about the XP-39's turbo was that the Army changed their mind about the plane's role and decided the Airacobra should be a low altitude ground support type. Obviously the turbo would be dead weight in that role, so they insisted that Bell remove it - and Bell complied under protest. I do not know why the Army would have had such a change of heart re: the XP-39 and not the XP-38, unless it was just that they saw more potential in Lockheed's big twin - which did fly first, and was even faster than the XP-39. I take it you didn't find any evidence of this in the primary sources?
In any case, thank you for another very informative video.
I have heard that story, that it was the Army that asked for the change. However there are primary source documents that dispute that, so I don't know what the truth is. I haven't found a smoking gun on this subject.
To your point my wife’s uncle was trained as a fighter-bomber pilot in a P39 (439 Sqn), but transitioned to P47s before going to Europe. He said the 37mm round looked like a pineapple going down range. Must have had good eyesight. Also trained on Dauntless dive bombers, A24s.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Birch Matthews in "Cobra" says it was kind of threefold. GE was having problems with supercharger production, GM wanted to get into high production on the Allison to start recouping development costs and Bell, always underfunded, was desperate for a large production order. In those days companies paid development costs out of their pockets
P39 was ahead of it's time in some ways... Thank you for such a detailed approach as always. Waiting for another video on this topec... P39 comparison to east front airplanes and how the soviets did it...
CG right on CL gives wonderful maneuverability and beautiful power off landings. Also easier to get off the ground.
Thanks Greg! Can you do an episode or a few, on the Hawker Tempest/Typhoon fighters and engines? I always thought they were cool but I had no idea about their engines. Just stumbled upon some info on the Napier Sabre, can't believe I'd never heard of it before, like the first time I learned about the BRM H16
The Swedish SAAB J-21 (pusher prop of WW2 vintage) also had nose gun, fuselage engine and tricycle landing gear. Thanks for great vids!
Great video! I've always liked the P-39 and it seemed to me that it was underestimated/got a bad rap.
Some early war US pilots even admitted being unfairly harsh on it.
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
Greg, this has to be the best channel on youtube. thanks for making these vids.
I just started the video but I have a feeling this is going to kick ass.
Learned lots about the P-39, most of which I never knew about. Most informative Greg.
Excellent and informative. It solves a lot of puzzles I have had as to why this aircraft was not particularly successful
As a total ignoramus on the subject of plane design, I’ve wondered why Bell could not have made the Airacobra a bit longer to accomodate the turbo and intercooler and perhaps a bit of fuel?Thanks for all of your videos.
I seem to remember one or 2 p39 racers after ww2. Without weapons etc they were fairly fast.
One won the Thompson Trophy in 46 or 47
@@mpetersen6 1946. Bell (and later Boeing) test pilot Tex Johnston beat North American test pilot George Welch flying a P-51, and Lockheed test pilot Tony LeVier flying a P-38.
Thanks for another great one. New subscriber working my way through. There was a good section about the tumbling problem in Tex Johnston's book, who was a Bell company test pilot before his Boeing fame. He said they tried and tried to reproduce this tumbling problem at Bell, and could not; it flew just fine. Finally they brought in someone from a squadron where it had this reputation, who was gonna show them. And lo and behold, he couldn't either. It turned out that the manual specified ballast to be put in the nose if it was flown without ammo, but this was commonly not followed. So this nasty famous problem it had, came simply from being flown aft of the CG limit, same as you would expect from any airplane.
Mid engines always find opposition in US, from the Airacobra, to the Convair, to the Corvette, which had to wait almost seven decades to have one... 😂
Hi Greg, many months ago i think it was the FW190 aircraft, i mentioned my thoughts on why the Germans had leather straps fitted to the rudder controls. My hypotheses was that given the piilots flat sitting position, this gave them greater leverage in controlling the rudder by both pushing on the left and pulling up on the right. This i have seen confirmed by watching the rudder operation in the Hellcat. No straps were fitted but provision was made on the rudder control where a foot could be slid under each pedal for achieving the same thing..
Many years ago I talked with an old Marine who had served on Guadalcanal, He said, "I dont understand how a plane that saved us so many times, was taken out of service ? He said "so many times it knocked out Jap hard points,we could here them screaming".
Great subject, good talk, informative and good comments. Let sanity prevail.
Love the P-39. Thanks for this great video.
What's amazing is that the whole driveshaft/transmission for the engine to prop was not a major maintenance or failure point for the plane.
Greg, will there be any discussion about the Allison turbo compounded V 1710 engine that was proposed to be fitted in the P 63?
At some point I'll get to that.
That would be interesting but in the end too little, too late. Jets were already on the way. As far as I know the only use made of the P-63 by the USAAF in WWII was as an "interceptor" used by squadrons "attacking" B-29s. These B-29s were used by training units to train gunners. These P-63 carried addition armor while the gunners were using .50 BMG ammunition with frangible bullets that would break up in impact causing sparks to show hits. The P-63s were referred to as pinballs.
Great stuff. I've always been fascinated by the P-39 and would be interested in another video by you on it.
I'm not even a fan of the P39 but you get a subscribe for this.
Superb work! Thanks for cutting through all the long repeated BS yet again!
P-39 is one of my all time favourite air craft
On the French aerobatic airplane ARS-300, moving the pilot forward compared to an Extra-300 for exemple, was a design criteria to reduce pilot stress under Gs
Yep! Love the clean lines of the plane myself.
Thanks for another great video. I read about the p-39 being used post-war in air racing--and doing really well. Would definitely be interested in a P-63 video!
The P-39 won the 1946 National Air Race and was leading the1947 race when the engine blew on the final circuit. That proves that all the P-39 needed was more HP and a gear driven supercharger. I had a single speed supercharger so why not a two speed? Put a Packard Merlin in it and see how it does at altitude. The P-39 airframe was preferred over the P-63 for air racing.
When Bob Hoover and Chuck Yeager say the P-39 was a fine airplane, it must be so. It was an unusual airplane and interesting to look at, I really enjoyed this video.
Neither Charles Yeager nor Bob Hoover EVER flew the P-39 in COMBAT ! If they had, their opinion of
the AirCobra might have been much different - it simply could not compete with enemy aircraft in
combat.
The pilots who DID fly the P-39 in combat are almost unanimous: It wasnt a Cobra, it was a Turkey !
@@paulrward ~ Google: Russia Beyond -- Why did Soviet aces adore this U.S. fighter? -- "The hard-to-handle but effective P-39 was designed for the best of the best, and served mainly in the guards units. Alexander Pokryshkin, Grigory Rechkalov, Alexander Klubov, Nikolai Gulaev, the brothers Dmitry and Boris Glinka, and other top Soviet aces all flew the American fighter. Pokryshkin, the second highest-scoring of all Allied fighter pilots, made 48 of his 59 kills with it, and Rechkalov 50 of 56. Even when faster and more maneuverable aircraft began to enter service with the Soviet Air Force toward the end of the war, many Soviet pilots remained faithful to their beloved Airacobra, which never let them down."
@@martentrudeau6948 Soviet WW2 fighters were, to a great extent, made from Steel and Plywood -
Aluminum was in short supply in the USSR, especially Duraluminum. Also, Soviet Engines, while
adequate for tractors, often lacked the quality necessary for demanding aircraft applications -
engine failures were common, and the front line Soviet Fighters, Yak 3 to 9, LaGG 1, 2, and 5,
and MiG 3, had severe handling problems that made them almost as dangerous to their own
pilots than they were to the enemy. Remember: Dozens of Luftwaffe Aces shot down more than
100 aircraft each, all on the Eastern Front !
Compared with the low quality Soviet Fighters, the P-39 would have seemed an improvement.
But compared with the P-40, the AirCobra was a slug. Heavy, unmaneurverable, with ( despite
Greg's video ) rather viscious stall and spin characteristics, the AirCobra made more Imperial
Japanese pilots into Aces than any other aircraft.
@@paulrward There are a number of Russian aces who would have disagreed with you I think. It didn't fit the needs of the USAAC as they developed but it fit the Eastern Front conditions quite well. The US opinions were formed by US pilots from the US perspective and it wasn't really until the 90's that the Russian pilot's stories became available in the West
@@tomhart837 Yes, but we must remember, when Russian soldiers were fed Amerian SPAM, they thought
it was a delicacy.....
Please do a segment on the evalution of the P39 to the P63 King cobra thank you greg!
Ngl, I’ve been partial to this plane for awhile. I’ve got a long list of favorites, but this is definitely a favorite “unloved” plane of mine. Gets an unfair reputation
You’re the man Greg! I get excited every time you have a new video. Love you bud, good stuff!
Missed your show glad u put out another great vid
I met Bob Hoover once. His mustache was quite flamboyant at the time.
Well done article on the Aircobra
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!
Thanks, the first time I saw a Lumchevak I wasn't sure what just happened.
IIRC, Chuck Yeager wrote in his autobiography that he witnessed several P-39's stall out and enter flat spins during hard maneuvers AFTER expending all their 37mm ammunition. Apparently the absence of all those heavy 37mm shells really screwed up the CG that was hard to trim out in the middle of a dogfight.
Really fascinating plane, need to get one for the flight sim!
Greg, will you ever make a video about the Studebaker Avanti? It was offered with a Paxton supercharger. Also I would love to see you talk about the Jensen Interceptor and it’s optional Ferguson Formula permanent all-wheel-drive system.
I love both those cars, I'll probably do it at some point.
29:15 mark The P-400 (as shown) was referred to by USAAF pilots in the S. Pacific as "A P-40 with a Zero on its tail."
Thanks for the video.
For years I have suffered much persecution and ridicule for choosing the P-39 as my top, favourite WW2 fighters...
I am now vindicated!!!
🏴☠️🏴☠️🔧🏴☠️🏴☠️
Hello Greg,
I 'm not sure I agree that the fuselage would have to be made heavier to handle tortional load. The load goes from propeller, to shaft, to engine, to engine mounts, to fuselage and finally to wings during flight, or to landing gear on the ground. The part of the fuselage structure between the engine mounts and the wings handles the load. On the P39 that part is much shorter and handles the load much better anyway. The part of the fuselage forward of the mounts towards the propeller plays no part.
Thank you for the time and effort you put into this, your channel is gold
The twisting load is between the gear box and the engine.
I have headphones with the Apple spatial stuff and your voice seems to be coming almost from behind me and to the right.
Probably an issue with Apple though; just thought I would put it down if it is a fixable audio issue or anyone else notices.
Great video, and such a beautiful aircraft! I am always impressed by Bell's designs, even the awkward and... interesting, Airacuda
I put on monitoring headphones to check and the audio is balanced, with a bass bias due to mic choice or settings
Excellent video! Looking forward to the next ones on the P63 and the Russian experience.
The audio balance is a little bit off. It's balanced to the right just a bit, but it's not just volume shift, the left is a bit basy, while the right holds the higher pitches. So it sounds a bit weird, and is hard to correct on our end. :/
My great uncle once said something about the p39 being nimble at lower speeds. The pilot near the center of gravity thing made me remember that. Maybe it felt like it handled better than it did with the pilot having that feeling of pivoting into turns.
1930's aerodynamics, as we see here, still had a lot based on "looks" rather than real testing. Engine placement was largely irrelevant since the CG and CL still have to be within the same margins. I think you nailed it when teh idea of a slender nose section was overcome by high drag of the turbocharger placement and lack of full gear retraction. Basically since it was no better performance wise, it made sense NOT to produce it in large numbers. Better to have fleets of cheap/robust radial engined planes than introducing another type for no gain,
I would definitely be interested in a detailed talk about the P-39 in Soviet service.
‘Prerecovery’. Pull the prop back to low rpm (not low pitch, low rpm means coarse pitch), time 39:17. Great video Greg, thanks.
Good catch.
Would be really interested in a video about the French C.714. It has an air-cooled inline engine and I once read that it´s one of the most aerodynamic planes of the war.
High G-onset rate in pitch is generally considered a bad thing. The F-16C reduced the size of the horizontal stabs because the A model put guys to sleep. The P-39 wouldn’t be stronger than the pilot, but onset rate is still a problem. The Tweet had a very quick onset rate, again, not useful since the brain needs time to adjust blood pressure for pitch, but not roll. Fast G onset just puts you out.
It hadn't occured to me they would have a reinforced nose to deal with the torque of the engine compared to a front engine plane. A lot of great engineering for such an early design.
Look at the ME-309 for a nose gear, front engine with cannon through the the nose. Not picking knits here as the ME-309 was never a production aircraft but that layout was unique.
It was also later.
Greg:
Thanks for another great video on the P-39. I would like to see a video on the Tempest and Napier Sabre sleeve valve engine. I find this engine to be vastly overlooked as a good design that needed more development. Very similar problems with the need for more work on the supercharger/turbocharger boost problems to see the full potential.
Don't say that to my grandfather - he hated those things. They caught fire, they smashed themselves to fragments on a cold soak start, they leaked oil, fuel and anything else worse than a Royal Oilfield. The Stag v8 in original form had a better survival rate.
@@rosiehawtrey Every new engine combination has teething troubles. By mid 1944 the Tempest was a very effective aircraft. I have always liked the P-39 & P-63. But, many American pilots hated them.
there was an old farmer that told me once he flew one of these in WW2 . His biggest remark was " That was the first plane I flew with seat belts and fist plane I crash landed sure was glad it had safety belts" lol always wanted to quiz him more about it
Sitting close to CG vs far from CG does affect the pilot’s G-loading. How much, depends on the radius of the pitch movement. Fighter jets with high TAS the effect is much less than slower prop planes. One example is pulling G’s with a two seater Extra 300. Front seat G-meter reads more than rear seat.
One thing a lot of people miss when comparing Super Chargers and Turbo Chargers is. A Turbo’s Drive pressure and how it helps bearings and the rotating assembly. In the high horse power Alcohol burning Hemi world when running a Roots ,Screw , or Centrifugal type super charger. It will eat rod and main bearings each run when your running it hard. The same motor with Turbos will make 20-30 runs with out even checking the bearings.
4:19, thats a nice decal my friend
I never had even heard of the p39 until I saw one in Tucson.