Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

I believe so, yes. This may depend upon a definition of "close", but as aircraft lacking airbrakes such as the Avenger were capable of "glide bombing" up to around 60 degrees, the use of airbrakes suggest the presence of something much steeper.

As to the thread being out of control, it does seem to have strayed far from the subject of the P-39, and gone rather theological. Tcolvin's recent posting shows a total refusal to rationally consider any of the evidence presented against his initial rant, continual slander of anyone with different opinions and continued repetition of extravagant claims and unsupportable bias. As a child of the Enlightenment, and not having any wish to be burnt on the stake of his fundamentalism, I'm ducking out.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

I am not being casual. I simply don't understand, as I said. So please tell me what Peter C. Smith meant by the following; "As these early aircraft had no angle of incidence the angle between the datum line of flight was nil at 90 degrees and negligible at 75 degrees. However the pilots were warned they must learn to judge the trail angle of the bomb, which varied with the angle of the dive."

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Equally, it is regrettable (but perhaps revelatory in ways you didn't intend) that you should imagine my reference to "going nowhere" could somehow be intended as patronising. Review this thread from the start. Do you see evidence of an emerging consensus or meeting of minds over the issues under discussion? If not, then maybe it is going nowhere.

I am of course deeply concerned to learn that my "mindset" is dominated by the RAF of the 1930s and 1940s, as you conceive it to have been, reaching out to those - like myself - yet unborn. Despite this malign influence, I believe you will search my collected writings in vain for any endorsement of strategic bombing as a war-winner.

"Refusal" was in inverted commas (aka "quotation marks") because I was quoting your words. I did not know (and nor did I claim to) whether at some point after the BoB someone in an RAF future requirements paper specifically said "we should acquire our own dive-bomber" and some high-up specifically refused. Whether they did or not, I sought only to point out that there were by then rational grounds for doubting the survivability of such an aircraft in the face of a modern air defence system: viz, the RAF had shot down a lot of Ju 87s in the BoB and believed they had shot down even more; the Luftwaffe pulled the Stukas out of the fighting. Ordering RAF dive-bombers in that particular context might possibly have been seen as ill-advised.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Since you don't know then let me inform you of the following;
a) dive bombers were ordered, delivered, and paid for, but
b) RAF Air Marshals overrode the army and refused to use them as dive bombers but diverted them to target-towing instead, while
c) publicly rubbishing dive bombing in the press to justify their position. But
d) the RAF and IAF in Burma, and the RAAF in Burma, used them successfully as dive bombers. However
e) the RAF Air Marshals insisted the dive bombers be replaced, and
f) the Air Marshals killed news of the dive-bombers' success in order to save themselves from the embarrassment of having to admit publicly that they had been wrong all along and that many good men had dies as a result.

All this has been covered earlier.
It can be read in Peter C. Smith's book, 'Vengeance!'.

There is a potentially infinite number of additional explanations as to why the RAF "refused" to operate dive bombers. But William of Occam's razor, aka lex parsimoniae, states that 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity'.

Therefore please forgive me for failing to realise you were only making a philosophical contribution to the debate.
Perhaps you will understand why I would think you were offering an alternative explanation, and that you were doing so in order once more to save the RAF from a collective red face. The RAF Air Marshals abused their position in their lifetimes in order to cover their arses. But on this occasion the truth has come out.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

The RAAF used the Vengeance in New Guinea and not Burma. Sorry for the typo in my previous posting.
Tony

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Lets try to keep this thread constructive, more importantly perhaps respectful. It doesn't matter if you don't agree as long as the discussion is constructive and informative.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Graham, you are misled. A friendly Mustang pilot recalls that when dive bombing, the aircraft accelerated so uncomfortably, the tacho looked like a propeller. Dive brakes are as usual in perpendicular dive as they are in shallow dive.
That said, Soviets had no dive bomber in the sense of Ju 87. Americans had Dauntlesses and Japanese - D3As but that is all.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

In June 1943 No. 23 Squadron's RAAF role was changed to that of a dive bomber unit and the Squadron was reequipped with Vultee Vengeance aircraft. After a period of training the Squadron deployed to Nadzab in New Guinea in February 1944 and flew its first bombing missions on 11 February. The Squadron was withdrawn to Australia and reduced to cadre status in March 1944, however, as the Vengeance was regarded as being inferior to other aircraft which had become available to Allied forces.

After completing its training on the Vengeance No. 24 Squadron RAAF deployed to New Guinea in August 1943 where it provided support to Australian Army and United States Marine Corps units in New Guinea and New Britain. The Squadron continued in this role until March 1944.

In August 1943 No. 25 Squadron RAAF was re-equipped with Vengeance dive-bombers and began air support exercises with the Army. In January 1945 the squadron was re-equipped with B-24 Liberators.

Didn't last to long in RAAF service as a dive bomber.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Franek, you forgot the Helldiver. The FAA also had the Skau.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Yep, b***dy Helldiver and Skua. I think Japanese army also had dive bombers (Sonia?). It does not change the fact, that dive bombers appeared in 1930s and were destined mostly to pin-point such targets like ships, thus most of them were naval aircraft. Ju 87 was an exception rather than the rule, and still a lot of its job was hitting naval targets.
Then again, Soviets had no dive bomber in the sense of Ju 87, and simply I do not understand what actually the argument is.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Dive bombing was far more important than you realise, Franek.

The first pilot to dive bomb was Lieutenant Harry Brown of 84 Squadron RFC who sank a munitions barge by dive bombing on the Western Front in 1917.
The RFC then conducted trials and experiments which the RAF continued at Orfordness in Suffolk, England through 1918-1919. They concluded the method gave great accuracy but was dangerous (no air brakes).

The first USAAC dive bombers were Attack Group 3 led by Lewis Brereton who had been taught by the RFC in France in 1918. They patrolled the Mexican border in the early 1920s. In the 1920s the USN and Marine Corps adopted dive bombing. The IJN followed suit and produced a succession of designs. Germans developed the He 50 in Russia and Udet bought Helldivers. The Germans saw the work of the Swedes at Froesen in 1934 and rejected rockets in favour of dive bombing. The first German unit was Jagdgeschwader 132 equipped with He 50 dive bombers. They refined their tactics and equipment in Spain.
The RN pressured the RAF to supply the Skua.
By 1939 there were quite a few dive bombers due to their inherent accuracy.
USA - Vought SBU Vindicator, Douglas SBD Dauntless, Curtis SB2C Helldiver, Vultee A34 Vengeance, and Brewster SB2A Buccaneer;
Germany - Ju 87 and Ju 88;
Japan - Aichi D3A1 Val, Yokasuka D4Y Comet, and Aichi B7A Shooting Star; USSR they had developed the technology - Archangelski AR-2, and soon introduced the Petlyakov Pe-2 Peshka;
UK - Hawker Henley and Blackburn Skua;
Poland - PZL P38 Wilk;
France - Loire Nieuport LN 401/410;
Italy - Savoia Marchetti SM85/86;
Sweden - Saab 18;
Bulgaria - DAF 10F;
Roumania - IAR 81.

The argument in a nutshell is whether the RAF refused to operate dive bombers for political or technical reasons.

You seem to question whether anyone except the Luftwaffe and naval aviation (USN, IJN and RN) operated dive bombers. I wonder if you would share your reasons for believing this.

Tony

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

That is what I said, and I gave the reason.

What is your point?

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

You said: "d) the RAF and IAF in Burma, and the RAAF in Burma (NG), used them successfully as dive bombers."

The point was the operational service life of the Vengeance, which wasn't very long, as the Vengeance was regarded as being inferior to other aircraft which had become available to Allied forces.

Agh, the protytpe SB2C didn't fly til Dec 18 1940 and finally saw battle Nov 11 1943.

The Brewster SB2A Buccaneer didn't fly til June 17 1941.

Hard for them to be available in 1939.

The Vultee Vengeance was the A-31. An improved version was the A-35. The A-34 designation was for the British version.

The first D4Y1 prototype made its maiden flight in December 1940, and proved to possess an excellent combination of high performance and good handling. After the prototype's successful trials development was sped up, the first unpleasant surprise came. Although well-proportioned and purposeful in appearance, service trials demonstrated weakness in the wing structure. During dive-bombing trials the wings of the D4Y started to flutter, so much that it could break up the wing spars, a fatal flaw for an airframe subject to the stresses of the dive bombing manoeuver, and the initial models were used as planes starting in late. Two early aircraft joined the fleet in time for the battle of Midway, when one was used in action.
The structural problems were fixed by March 1943.

The Aichi B7A was designed in response to a 1941 requirement issued by the Imperial Japanese Navy for a carrier attack bomber that would replace both the Nakajima B6N Tenzan torpedo plane and the Yokosuka D4Y Suisei dive bomber in IJN service. Given the codename Grace by the Allies, it first flew as a prototype in May 1942, but problems with the delivery of the engines meant that it was not produced in numbers until 1944.

Hard for them to be available in 1939.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

A brief comparison between the dive-bombing techniques of the Stuka and the Vengeance :

Vengeance :
a) Approach target at approx. 12, 000'
b) Target goes past trailing edge of wing (usually port)
c) Select bombs to 'live,' bomb doors open
d) Wing over into dive
Alternately
b) Open bomb doors and fly over target
c) Observe target through window on floor
d) When target directly below half-roll into dive
e) Select dive brakes and dive at 70-90 degrees
f) Terminal velocity speed in dive approx. 320 mph
g) Release bombs at 4, 000 - 3, 500' agl
h) Retract dive brakes and initiate pull-out 3, 000' agl
f) Complete pull-out by 500' and exit or engage ground targets with guns

Stuka :
a) Approach target at approx. 13, 000'
b) Target goes past trailing edge of wing (usually port)
c) Close radiator flaps
d) Supercharger off
e) Wing over and half-roll into dive
Alternatively
e) Stick forward into dive
f) Set angle of dive 70-90 degrees(red lines showing various angles marked on canopy side panels)
g) Accelerate
h) Apply dive brakes
i) Release bomb 1, 600' agl
j) Retract dive brakes, open radiator shutter, supercharger on, initiate recovery
k) Recover around 700' agl and exit or engage target with guns

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Tony, we talk about WWII, are not we?

It was Export Hawk but it does not matter.
Of these first three are naval aircraft, of the latter only Vengeance saw limited use. You could mention A-24 as well.
Ju 87 since 1942/43 was used as ordinary level bomber and gradually replaced with Fw 190F. Ju 88 is in another league like He 177.
Naval aircraft.
Pe-2 used mostly as a level bomber and in the same 'shallow' league as Ju 88. Ar-2 hardly widespread and quickly phased out.
Henley never saw active service. Skua - naval.
Never heard of it being a dive bomber.
Limited quantities.
Never seen that.
Is not it post-war?
Limited production if any.
Outdated fighter turned into fighter bomber. I would put it in the same league as eg. Spitfire.
Mate, tell me what major power used dive bombers for ground support, apart of early use of Ju 87s?

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

It was judged inferior to the Hurricane IV, Liberator, Typhoon, Spitfire, in fact to anything that could fly, by the Air Marshals.
But since the objectivity of the Air Marshals stands condemned by their own words and actions that are on the record, it is circular to argue that the Vengeance was regarded as being inferior because it was regarded as being inferior.
If you want to understand this whole appalling story, then read Peter C. Smith's 'Vengeance!'.

Tony

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

No, Franek.

We talk about your statement; "It does not change the fact, that dive bombers appeared in 1930s and were destined mostly to pin-point such targets like ships, thus most of them were naval aircraft."

Your "fact" is not true. Agree? Dive bombing appeared in 1917 and was taken up enthusiastically by all of the major powers because of its unmatched accuracy.

The major powers then dropped it, except for the Ju 87 which was close to being a war-winning weapon and was later fitted with an accurate gun, for entirely spurious reasons to do with Douhet and strategic bombing as expounded by Portal, Harris, Slessor, and Dr. Strangelove.

Tony

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Sure Tony. I don't see one Spec for a RAF dive bomber for the 1920-1929 period. Who will you blame for this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Specifications

Until 1937, the Naval Air Branch was part of the RAF and dive bombers (Skau) were ordered.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Re: The P-39. I have several friends who flew the P-39 in training and hated it. In North Africa, Col Sluder was making an inspection trip of a P-39 outfit to see how well they were doing with the new P-39 model (I forget the designation) and inquired of the squadron commander how they liked it. The reply was, “It’s still a P-39.” He then went on to tell Col Sluder that on his morning fight he observed 4 Me-109s above and ahead of him and his greatest concern was being able to stay low and hidden in their 6 o’clock position. If you inquire of the German pilots who flew there, they described the P-39 as “good target practice.”

The 325th FG was the first to fly a Frantic mission to Russia and on landing there, they talked with some of the Russian pilots who were flying P-39s from Piryatin field. The Russians were quite satisfied with the performance of the P-39 and insisted they could hold their own and more below 12,000 feet with the Me-109. However, these P-39s were unlike ours. All the armor plate was removed, all the guns except the 37 mm cannon were removed, and all the radio equipment had been taken out. They were extremely interested in our P-51s. There are some interesting stories about the lengths they went to in order to determine its performance and “secrets.”

An interesting sidelight to that mission was the realization by our pilots that the Russians were fighting a different war from us. Because there was a possibility of going down behind Russian lines during our missions, we were required to wear the .45 in a shoulder holster. If a Russian pilot was shot down behind German lines, he was expected to engage the Germans with his sidearm and not surrender! Thus, they would have been upset if we did not also carry a sidearm. The implication was that we were also supposed to take on the German army with our .45 if downed on one of our missions. Ha! Our briefings clearly pointed out that no one had ever shot his way out of Germany with his .45. There were many other unbelievable stories we heard when they got back. Unfortunately, 3 others and myself had been sent to Casablanca to ferry back some new P-51s when the 325thFG was alerted and sent on this mission. We surely missed a good one.


By the way, the only ace I know of in the P-39 was a William Fiedler who was flying them in the Pacific. He met his demise when a P-38 landed on him while he was waiting to take off.

Cordially, Art Fiedler

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Thank you very much for very interesting post.

You are right, the Russians "re-manufactured" their P-39s into the other aircraft. In 1944 they published their own Russian-language maintenance manual for the P-39s. This is general purpose document which does not differentiate the Airacobra variants. This manual confirms all your words. No armor plates, no radio, entire technical culture of P-39 maintenance is reduced mainly to the hammer, rivet and brake press for propeller straightening.

Best regards

E.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Hello
what I have read the Russians liked P-39's radio, so I doubt that it was usual to remove it. And I have never read before that the two .5 mgs in the nose were removed. On the other hand wing mgs were rather often removed to lighten the plane and maybe also to improve the rate of roll. This can be seen from many photos. In about ½ of the photos on Russian P-39s which I have seen and from which it have been possible to see the area were wing guns are/should be the wing mgs were removed.

A good interview of a Soviet ex-P-39 pilot can be seen here http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...ikov/part3.htm

Juha

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Hi Juha,

You know, war = no rules. Theoretically Kingfisher was armed with flexible gun at radioman position. Theoretically. Try to find its typical AN M2 machine gun behind the pilot in the rear-based Kingfishers when the life rafts replaced the guns in radiomen's cockpits. :wink:

When it comes to the Russian P-39s -- theoretically perhaps you are right. The Russian manual of 1944 I mentioned shows P-39 cutaway with complete set of two guns per wing. Heaven knows what the units did in the field however...

Regards

E.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

I have got a Soviet P-39 manual and it is quite detailed, so I would disregard such comments as the ones above.

Art's comments are more interesting though. Definetelly most if not all of Soviet P-39s had their wing guns removed. Armour was not being removed as quite recently I have seen a rather emotional description when pilots were faced with choice of aircraft with steel plate and armoured glass head armour. Perhaps the latter caused confusion? Also, I am not awared of any radio sets being removed, but they could have been converted to HF. Misinformation to poor communication perhaps?

Concerning US P-39s, there is indeed a number of conflicting accounts. I suppose part of them was caused by a rather bad publicity of Airacobra, part by availability of superior aircraft and part by a bad condition of worn aircraft. I know several pilots were happy to exchange worn Spitfire IXs for new Spitfire XVIs, despite the former was considered a better aircraft.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Mr Franek,
I am not sure what you mean by "disregard the above??" In our case, the 325th landed at Piryatin and observed the P-39s at close hand. Clearly these did not have radios as the pilots all ran to their aircraft when an alert came in and simultaneously took off in all directions. They were dispersed completely around the airfield. Try to visualize the situation of our 60+ aircraft landidng while the 39s were all taking off!! If you disagree with this, that is your right. I thought that what was observed in this instance might be of some value to the members of this board. I also think you may be making a mistake thinking that everyone obeyed the tech orders put out for their airplane.

The operating instructions for the Thunderbolt stated that when dropping the external wing tanks, the aircraft should be flown at no more than 160 mph and in straight and level flight. Now visualize yourself being bounced. Do you think you would slow up, go straight and level, and then drop the tanks. Of course not and no one did. This resulted in some bent ailerons and flaps but was eventually resolved.

Also it is my impression that many of the folks writing on this thread seem to think that there was no variation in the aircraft assigned to a Group. I cannot speak for the Russians or the Germans but the Americans modified their aircraft in many instances. In our P-40s, some of the pilots removed 2 of the machine guns for better performance. The same was true in the P-47 and although I have my doubts, one pilot was said to have his 8 guns loaded with 800 rounds per gun. I believe that all the other P-47s carried a load of 400 rounds per gun. Many of the pilots changed the convergence point of their guns. Wayne Lowry, an 11 victory ace had his guns converge at 200 yards, I had mine at 250 yards, but others decided that 300 yards was more to their liking. Then just prior to when we were supposed to get the K-14, all the gun patterns were changed.

Our Mustangs could not be set up to draw more than the 66 inches of MP because of the fuel octane. In the 8th as I am sure you know, they could draw 70 inches with the higher octane of their fuel. In the Thunderbolt, WEP was supposed to be 56 inches of MP as I recall; however in our group, we modified the engine so it could pull 70 inches. This was certainly not condoned by anyone from higher headquarters, and it drove the tech rep nuts. Our philosophy was that if you could not get away from an opponent, and you were in real trouble, you might as well use the 70 inches. But everyone knew this was a last ditch effort and so was seldom used.

Cordially, Art Fiedler

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Art
I cannot see how Quote: "Clearly these did not have radios as the pilots all ran to their aircraft when an alert came in and simultaneously took off in all directions. They were dispersed completely around the airfield." confirms that those P-39s didn't have radios. There are other well known chaotic scrambles with a/c known for sure having radios.

Well, it´s different thing to remove part of armament and remove radio. Radios were essential to good teamwork but with 4 .5 mgs P-40 still had reasonable firepower. After all some P-40s were manufactured with 4 mg armaments, IIRC P-40Ds, Ls and early Ns.

Well, I think that we all know that there were all kinds of unofficial modifications made by units or individuals.

Juha

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

I mean just only to disregard the post of user 'Empiricist' as it makes no sense and I cannot support it with Soviet documents.

Concerning field modifications, I am well awared of them, and quite recently I have read about field modifications to move P-39's CoG forward. This included partial removal of armour and moving of radio sets to another position behind the pilot. Perhaps this was observed by your friends at Piryatin?
That said I am not awared of any attempts to remove radio or full armour from Soviet Airacobras, but I cannot exclude some aircraft did.
Such modifications were made to British Spitfire Vs defending Alexandria from German high-altitude Ju 86 recce aircraft. In this case the intercepting aircraft was led to target by a radio equipped one flying below.

Concerning modifications, it always bothered me, that as there were always more pilots than aircraft, so if a one pilot modified his mount to personal taste, what would be a reaction of another pilot flying his plane.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Juha: You are absolutely right. Just because all the '39s scrambled at once did not confirm they were without radios. I forgot for the moment that we were talking about a RUSSIAN operation. As I think back , if they did have radios, the airfield controller was probably shouting for them to take off immediately as they were supposed to provide top cover while we landed. I wish I had been there to have given a first hand account but the stories when the Group returned were eye-openers to say the least. With our birds down to 10 to 15 gals of fuel remaining, it was imperative that they land ASAP. Their stories of '39s coming at them from all angles was hilarious...but could have been disastrous. I was told that the Russians were the ones who showed us what they had done to their birds to make them competitive with '109s up to 12,000 feet. Those in the know could not believe a P-39 could compete with a Me-109.

Franek: I had never thought about what you said concerning the individual modifications made to a bird when someone, not the primary pilot was assigned to fly it. In reality the mods made to the '51 were not really that important, I guess. When I think of the convergence point, I am not sure it made a great deal of difference as with the vibrations of the bird, and firing from positions with varying degrees of banks and different G forces, the actual aiming point would be difficult to pinpoint. When we used to view gun camera film and somebody, with the upper left tit indicating he was firing, was missing completely, it was hard to determine exactly what he was doing wrong. Now if we had the ball part of the ball and turn indicator somehow in the picture, I am sure it would have shown a lack of proper trim. I can say that with some authority, as it happened to me. Coming in on a '109, I did not realize his engine was not turning over until too late, and I was closing too fast. I pulled the throttle off and my bird went completely out of trim. However, I did not notice this as I was firing and taking a lead. I NEVER SAW ONE SHOT HIT HIS BIRD EVEN THOUGH I ALMOST RAN INTO HIM TRYING TO GET SOME HITS. But my apologies, that had nothing to do with mods.

I suspect that our '51 mods had little to do with any observable differences in flying qualities. After flying the P-51D, I would have objected to being required to fly a mission in the P-51C again. That wasn't a mod but of course a different model of airplane. In the '47, our possible mods probably made more of a difference as different ammo loads certainly contributed to different flying characteristics due to having 8 guns or perhaps 6 guns if modified.

Keep up the good work, you gentlemen are doing a great job.

Cordially, Art Fiedler

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

In the interesting " Conversations with N. G. Golodnikov" by Andrei Sokhorukov at http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...ikov/part4.htm, Golodnikov does not deny, and therefore assents to, the statement by Sokhorukov made in the following extract, that the Pe-2 was employed as a vertical dive bomber just like the Ju-87.

A.S. This question is not exactly on topic, but in your view, was the Ju-88 a better dive bomber than the Pe-2?
N.G. The Ju-88 never dropped bombs from a dive, only in horizontal flight.
A.S. Well, according to reference book data, the Ju-88 was a dive bomber.
N.G. Aren’t you a little confused? The Germans’ dive bomber was the Ju-87 Laptezhnik. This aircraft only bombed out of a dive. It bombed very accurately, but was also very slow. It was relatively easy to shoot down. In my opinion, the Germans stopped using it in the North sometime in mid-1944.
The Ju-88? I never saw it drop bombs from a dive and never heard that it was used that way either.


Franek; would you please provide evidence that the Pe-2 was not employed as a vertical dive-bomber like the Ju-87, Vengeance and Skua. No one on this forum is permitted ex cathedra statements which contradict Shores. Your evidence, please.





Tony

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Art
Yes, I suppose it was more important a general condition of the aircraft. A friendly pilot once did a test flight of a personal Mustang III (P-51B/C) of a senior officer and described it to be a completelly different aircraft, perfect in every inch, without any clearances(?) and going by a finger. Certainly more important than a convergence point.
The latter indeed seems of little importance as it was found that in general pilots had a lot of problems estimating the distance - a number of claims were rejected because of target being too far of effective range. Have you experienced the problem in your group?
Your comments favouring P-51D over P-51B/C sounds interesting, as I have heard exactly opposite ones, but perhaps referring to improved P-51C with a Malcolm Hood blown canopy. The flat top version was indeed disliked due to cramped cockpit and poor visibility. I am honestly curious of your reasoning, as well as perhaps any comments to any aircraft you flew.
We would not be able to do it, without experiences shared by veterans. If you like what we are doing, please keep writing here as often as possible. It is priceless for us!

Tony
This is just ridiculous. Please prove otherwise based eg. on Pe-2 pilot's notes.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Franek.
Please humour me.
You are quite right this matter is ridiculous.
1. Both Christopher Shores in 'Ground Attack Aircraft of WWII', and Richard Hallion in 'Strike from the Sky' state the Pe-2 was used as a 70degree dive-bomber. Bergstroem and Mikhailov in 'Black Cross, Red Star Vol 2' state that 1,000lb of bombs were fitted under the wings of the Pe-2 for dive bombing when the three bomb bays were not employed.
2. You state the Pe-2 was rarely used as a dive-bomber in the 70 to 90 degree dive.
3. When asked for your evidence, you tell it's ridiculous and I should prove the Pe-2 was used in the 70 to 90 degree by reference to eg the Pe-2 pilot's notes. But I don't have the Pe-2 pilot's notes, I don't know where to get them, and if I got them couldn't read them.
4. I rest my case.
Tony

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Since when does the stated 70* dive become a 90* dive?

"Richard Hallion in 'Strike from the Sky' state the Pe-2 was used as a 70degree dive-bomber"

I guess it can be said the RAF had dive bombers since the Spitfire could be dived at a 60* angle. There is also your claim, tcolvin, that the Typhoon also did vertical dives. So what are you running on about that the RAF did not have dive bombers?

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Touche!

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

You, Kutscha and Franek, cannot be saying that a dive bomber is any bomber that can dive. You both must believe that to qualify as a dive bomber it must be stressed for pullout, have an automatic pullout system, dive brakes, and a method of delivering bombs outside the propeller arc.

So if you both believe this, then why equivocate over whether dive angles were 60, 70 or 90 degrees?

The Pe-2, Ju87, Vengeance and Skua were dive bombers and could dive vertically. Why do you fight against accepting that simple fact?

Be honest, now. What is your problem?

Tony

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Tony
We do not have any problem, you have. Dive bomber is an aircraft able to drop bombs in a dive not necessarily perpendicular. He 177 was also a dive bomber but it was hardly able to stand up a shallow dive, so does not fit to your theory. Come on.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

"Richard Hallion in 'Strike from the Sky' state the Pe-2 was used as a 70degree dive-bomber"

When did 70* become vertical? Is this the 'new math'?

It doesn't take a genious to understand that the dive limit angle is 70*. If the limit was more it would have been stated.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

No it wouldn't.
But at least you've cleared the air. We're arguing semantics.
It's true both Shores and Hallion say the Pe-2 attacked in a 70 degree dive.
You interpret this as a design restriction.
I interpret it as a operational decision.
Hallion explains what he means by "70 degrees". He says the Ju87 attacked at a "very steep angle" of 60 to 80 degrees. But you would be wrong to conclude the Ju87 was restricted to a dive angle of 80 degrees. It wasn't. The Ju87 could and did attack at 90 degrees whenever pinpoint accuracy was required. Ditto the Pe-2.
Everybody including Hallion calls the Pe-2 a dive bomber, which means it had dive brakes, and a system for automatic pullout (which the Russians would have copied from Vultee who built them a factory), and bombs released from outside the propeller arcs. The Pe-2 must have had all these to qualify as a dive bomber.
But it had more. According to Hallion; "Designed to an ultimate safety factor of 11g, the Pe-2 obviously had the ruggedness to be operated with abandon by its crews". That is inconsistent with a restricted dive angle of 70 degrees
For myself I will not believe the Pe-2 was restricted to a dive angle of 70 degrees.
But Franek is right; such a restriction if it existed would be included in the Pilot's Notes, which no one has.
Tony

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Come on yourself, Franek. Look at the facts. Ernst Heinkel's Luftwaffenfeuerzeug was a dive bomber. He may have been lying. I don't know, but I'll take his word over yours. He certainly had enough time to make it into a dive bomber after telling Udet it couldn't be done.

You won't believe me, so I'll quote what Heinkel said.
"Even after Udet's death, leading men in the Technical Office and in the general staff .... could not be moved to take back their demand for dive bombing capabilities, despite the need for a long-range, heavily armed giant plane at the front. But even after the production of an airframe stable enough for absolute dives, the use of the DB 606 (later DB 610) coupled engine remained the plane's achilles heel". page 283 of 'Stormy Life' by Ernst Heinkel.

AFAIK the He 177 had dive brakes, automatic pullout, a system for releasing bombs outside the propeller arcs, and was stressed for "absolute dives" which means from the vertical. That made it a dive bomber.



Are you still sure it's me with the problem?

Tony

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

OK, guys, let's cool the tone of th rhetoric here! Stop the personal characterizations and stick to dive-bombing issues. Otherwise, I'll lock this thread.

Also, we've gotten WAY off base with the subject matter which is the place of the P-39 in history. Let's stick to that.

If you want a separate thread on dive bombing, set it up in the WWII in General forum. and, be cool! ;)

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Yes and no, John.

Yes, let's stay cool, and avoid personal characterizations. But no, we have not gotten off base with the P-39's place in history.

Please note what's really going on here.

There are greater issues here than dive bombing and the P-39, and these greater issues determine the P-39's place in history.

We're talking trees and wood. The place of the P-39 tree is determined in some degree by the place of the VVS wood in history.

And discussing that brings into question the validity of the consensus view of the WWII air war. The Pe-2 is related to the P-39 and Il-2 in that all three types of aircraft were rejected by the RAF/USAAF, and rejected with feeling. Any arguments made in their favour come up against this RAF/USAAF weltanschauung. And putting that in doubt is like questioning motherhood and apple pie; the person doing it must be a troll, which is what I have been accused of.

It's a pity there are no Russian contributors. Then we wouldn't be arguing over basic facts about the Pe-2, which was one of WWII's most successful aircraft designs. We've had the same disagreements with the P-39 and Il-2. But that's indicative of the wider problem. A Russian contributor might also stand up for the importance of effective tactical aircraft and the general irrelevance of strategic aircraft to victory in WWII.

The RAF/USAAF worldview has quasi cult status. Many have internalised it. A statement that the RAF/USAAF got it wrong tends to produce howls of outrage, charges of trolling, and counter-charges about Russian inhumanity and the loss rate of the Il-2. That says buckets about those who obviously have a lot invested. But having emotion involved is not conducive to rational debate.

Tony