Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by mayfair35

Mr Franek,
I am not sure what you mean by "disregard the above??"

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.

[mayfair35]

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

[Juha]

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

[Franek Grabowski]

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.

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

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.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

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

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

[Kutscha]

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?

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

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?

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

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

The Pe-2, Ju87, Vengeance and Skua were dive bombers and could dive vertically.

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.

[Franek Grabowski]

Touche!

[Franek Grabowski]

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.