Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.

[Juha]

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

[Empiricist]

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.

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.

[Franek Grabowski]

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.

[mayfair35]

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

[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]

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

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

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.

Mate, tell me what major power used dive bombers for ground support, apart of early use of Ju 87s?

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

[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