P-39 and F2A question

I would imagine that the pilots who ‘liked’ the P39 had not flown any other operational aircraft at that time.It was used more as an advanced trainer by the USA than as a bone fide combat aircraft,although i know it was used a bit by them in one theatre.In Tex Johnston’s autobiography he quite liked the P39(he was a test pilot for Bell Aircraft at the time) although he seemed to tentatively admit that without ammunition loaded(or after it had been fired??) the aircraft might ‘tumble’ during combat manoevering.Presumably very sensitive to c of g position then!!
He raced one to victory in the thompson trophy post war but really the aircraft was not a good design for combat ie over complex,poor pilot visibility and extremely difficult to bail out of(to put it politely)

By the way, the last Brewster:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/bw372lecture/

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a properly-sourced explanation for USAAC’s decision to delete the turbo, but it would be true to say that GE turbosuperchargers were not, at that time, the most reliable or fully developed pieces of kit.

NiallC

I believe the reasoning behind the removal of the turbo was, that the US at the time did not envisage, and given that there was no threat to the US at the time, being at war and the P-39 was purely meant for air defence and was deamed able for the role also the range was severally reduced by the addition of the self sealing fuel tanks, these two factors were critical, and lead to its limited military application.
Its performance at low level however was faster than the P-51 so I understand so maybe thats why the Russians liked them so much.

BTW It wasn’t the USAAF that asked for the Turbos to be removed, it was a recommendation to Bell from National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics’ (NACA) after they carried out tests

“Wasn’t the whole reason for the P-39’s mid-engined design to place the engine at the centre of gravity ??…..

….and thereby improve manouvreability ??”

Well, partly that’s true. The P38 and P39 were both designed to the same specification (X608), which amongst other things specified the fitting of a single 37mm canon. Due to the size,weight and recoil of such a weapon the only sensible place to mount it was down the centreline, this being one of the key reasons why Lockheed went for a twin-engined design.
The solution on the ’39 was to mount the weapon in the nose,firing through the prop hub, hence the need to move the engine back to the middle of the aircraft. As far as I’m aware, the US never developed an engine that could mount a gun through the middle of it, as with the Daimler Benz 601,605 etc.

Also the prototype was equipped with a supercharger but it was the USAAC that asked for it to be removed

It was the turbocharger, not the supercharger, which was removed from the P39. Ditto for the RAFs P38s. In both cases the supercharger remained but, having been designed as a second stage supercharger (with the turbo being the first stage) it was less than efficient when used on its own. I’d imagine a two stage Merlin with the first stage removed would probably be similarly challenged.

With the turbo the engine had a full throttle height of over 20,000 ft. and pushed the P39 prototype (admittedly flown at less than its operational weight) to 390 mph – not bad for Spring 1938. With the turbo deleted full throttle height fell to as little as 12,000 ft.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a properly-sourced explanation for USAAC’s decision to delete the turbo, but it would be true to say that GE turbosuperchargers were not, at that time, the most reliable or fully developed pieces of kit.

NiallC

A great thread – very informative and one that hasn’t degenerated into into mud-slinging pissing contest – at least not yet !

Second – IIRC, the Brewster F2A/339 had, essentially, the SAME engine as one of its Soviet opponents – the I-16.Ken

The Buffalo had a Wright R-1820, while the I-16 had a Shvetsov M-25 which was a licenced copy of the Wright R-1820.

Obviously there were minor design mods along the line but basically the same engine.

Commonly called the Cyclone it was a vey good engine, also used in later versions of the F4F. It also was used in export versions of the P-36.

Now how about some mud-slinging etc. ? – naah just joking. 😀

Flanker_man is right about the engines, actually the Finns used captured Russian M-63 engines in some of their their Brewsters later in the war.

A great thread – very informative and one that hasn’t degenerated into into mud-slinging pissing contest – at least not yet !

Just a couple of off-the-top-of-my-head observations from me…………

Wasn’t the whole reason for the P-39’s mid-engined design to place the engine at the centre of gravity ??…..

….and thereby improve manouvreability ??

As a design solution – how effective was that ?

Second – IIRC, the Brewster F2A/339 had, essentially, the SAME engine as one of its Soviet opponents – the I-16.

I don’t have my refs to hand – but the I-16 engine was(IIRC) a licence-built derivative of the Buffalo engine.

Just my two penn’orth

Ken

Secondly, the P38 always had turbochargers fitted from the prototype onwards, the positioning of the turbochargers being one of the reasons for the aircraft’s unusual twin-boom configuration. The only Lightnings without them were the 332F(French) and 332B(British) export models, and these never saw action. Early P38 models did have some engine troubles, particularly in Europe, but as I’ve heard it this was more to do with the intercoolers and other ancillaries.

Of course you are right, I was referring to the early version used by the British – which I really failed to make clear 😮 . Strange how governments make decisions that the designers warn them against, but still go ahead.

Yeager, who despite some personality problems, was a reasonable pilot liked the P39 which he flew in the States. Many other pilots liked them because of their light handling and manoeverability. Yet despite those virtues they just weren’t up to scratch where it countered as an air superiority fighter or interceptor.

The P63 was an excellent aircraft, but not really needed by the time it got into production. It was partly this falling off of production at Bell which allowed the US Government to give them the task of developing the first US jet – the P59. Plus the fact that Bell had a record of designing and producing aircraft which were a little out of the ordinary. The Aircuda is an example.

Oddly the first F2As were a very good and manoeverable fighter, well like by pilots – and actually was much better than the prototype Grumman F4F. Grumman had to completely redesign the F4F to stand a chance of getting a Navy contract. The later F2As were hampered by all the add ons and things that the Navy wanted, plus Brewster’s appalling production methods.

The Finns were flying the best combat version of it, and the F2A/339 actually had a very good record in the initial stages in Malaya, but lack of modern fighter control systems and early warning hampered it. Plus of course there was no way losses could be replenished. As was demonstrated in the Battle of Britain an air force needed instant replenishment of losses of material.

But what was OK then quickly became obsolete and the F2A had little development expansion inbuilt, unlike for example Spitfires or Me109s. The more you tried to upgrade it the heavier it got. By Midway in July of 1942 the F2A3 was quite overweight and obsolete. Fortunately the US had the F4F in quantity and F6Fs and F4Us in the pipeline.

A very interesting and enjoyable thread. 🙂
Just to clear a couple of technical points up, the P63 was quite a different aircraft to the P39, with few interchangeable parts between the two. The ’63 had “laminar flow” wings amongst other features, which gave it a better performance compared to the ’39 in addition to the extra supercharging.
Secondly, the P38 always had turbochargers fitted from the prototype onwards, the positioning of the turbochargers being one of the reasons for the aircraft’s unusual twin-boom configuration. The only Lightnings without them were the 332F(French) and 332B(British) export models, and these never saw action. Early P38 models did have some engine troubles, particularly in Europe, but as I’ve heard it this was more to do with the intercoolers and other ancillaries.

Interesting points about the P39. From a handling point of view it was very popular with pilots. Also in its prototype form it was a world beater, but once all the combat equipment was added the performance dropped. Also the prototype was equipped with a supercharger but it was the USAAC that asked for it to be removed. This single silly mistake removed any chance the P39 had of being a good fighter at over 15000 feet.

So it was not a design fault that ruined it in its intended role but a short sighted government decision. With a supercharger fitted, and given normal technical development there is no real reason why IMHO it couldn’t have become a very useful addition to the allied armoury. Its performance as a prototype, with supercharger, was superior to, or equal to, any other fighter of the late 30s. Look at its successor the P63 – same geometry, but supercharged and a response to the lessons of Europe. Only the existence by then of the P47s and P51s prevented it from having a more major role.

Like the early P38, and the P40 it was castrated by the use of the unsupercharged Allison engine. Both those aircraft were good performers below 15000 feet, but it was a severe limitation on their all round usefulness. Also by the time these aircraft entered operational service (1941) their performance was too far behind the game being played out in the skies of Europe.

Basically they were the unhappy results of US planning being out of step with the reality of modern warfare. It took the US some frantic effort and a new generation of fighters, the P47 and P51 to catch up.

…The myth about P-39 about being a tank buster or ground attack plane is a western myth, which has no basis in actual history. P-39 just happened to be a good plane in the correct place: the aerial combats of eastern front happened mostly in low to medium altitudes, where the P-39 was on its best. In the Pacific or European theatres aerial combats took place higher, and P-39 just didn’t like to be high, its performance dropped badly there. So eastern front, in Russian hands, P-39 finally found its niche and performed very well as a fighter.

After all, the highest scoring Allied fighter aces flew P-39.

Yes, P-39’s were fighters in Soviet use like any other fighters not especially ground attack planes. To be picky the highest claiming Soviet, Kozhedub, was consistently a Lavochkin pilot, although No. 2 Pokryshin claimed most of his victories in P-39’s, as well as a number of others near the top of the Soviet claims list. Besides pickiness this leads to a more important point, those are *claims* not real a/c destroyed, and of exceptional pilots in a large war. Still after 60+ years there isn’t full research into the accuracy of claims of every fighter force in every period of WWII, though more all the time. But in cases we do know claim accuracies varied a lot, so ace claims as a way of comparing WWII aircraft is generally a form of ‘skating on thin ice’, IMO.

It’s still hard to be certain how well Soviet P-39’s really did v. German fighters. But AFAIK from what evidence exists it’s doubtful the P-39 had an actually favorable (>1) fighter-fighter exchange ratio in Soviet hands. It is possible to say it was viewed generally positively by the Soviets compared to most of their own fighters even into 1944, though some of their later types (Yak-9 VK-105, La-5N, etc.) were clearly superior.

Joe

This discussion makes me wonder just why Bell did not equip the P-39 with a supercharger………….Finnland sure was in a very undesirable position. She recieved much sympathy and equipment from England (at least 12 Hurricanes) until Germany attacked the Soviets, then England made the choice (in terms of pure logic, the correct one) to support Russia at the expense of Finnland……

I often suspect that is why some western countries were a little tardy in their approach to pursuing Nazi war criminals

If so (The Gehlen organisation springs to mind) the same is true of the Soviets, just check-out the fate of ‘useful’ Nazis in the Soviet Union including scientists, intelligence departments and weapons production specialists that were spirited away in 1945 and politically useful proxies in their zone of control were forgiven their past, if it suited Moscow- I believe many of the medium level Nazis that had a sudden conversion to communism were know as ‘red/browns’ – red on the outside, still brown on the inside.
And while we’re on the subject what was the difference between the Hitler Youth and the Young Pioneers in east Germany? The YP wore blue!

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/germany/intro/gehlen.htm

Malcolm, you are partly right, but in our case we did not just accept the Soviet terms. Please do some googling as I recommended in my previous post. The Soviet offensive was stopped in the battle of Tali-Ihantala (which btw was a bigger battle than for example El Alamein), and they agreed to negotiate with us. Yes, we did lose a piece of our country, but remained independent. Of course Soviets could have conquered Finland, but after their loss in Tali-Ihantala they decided that it is not worth the effort.

While I agree that Finns would have gladly exchanged the Brewsters for FW190s, I must say that they would probably first have repalced Fiat G50s, Morane Saulnier 406s and Curtiss Hawks…

Yes, we were your enemies in the Continuation War, UK even declared war on Finland, on 6 December 1941. We did have a choice, to be on the side of Stalin or Hitler. You could call that being between a rock and a hard place. With hindsight, our choice was good. Otherwise, we would have regained our independence about 15 years ago, just like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia did. And I would not be writing this. Besides, Finland was never part of the so-called Axis powers, we just shared the enemy, and in that, only Soviet Union.

Actually I was not condemning the Finns – they made the best choice they had at the time. Alliance with Germany was from any perspective preferable to being swept up by the Russians. The point I was making is that so much of our perception of that particular conflict is tied up with our post-war Cold War feelings, which does tend to make many Westerners see anyone who fought the Russians as being ‘right’.

(I often suspect that is why some western countries were a little tardy in their approach to pursuing Nazi war criminals, and why we tended to forgive them if we found they had technical skills to offer (e.g. Von Braun). The Russians were perceived by many Americans and British as the true enemy long before 1939.)

Also I would think that the Finns had little choice. It was either accept the Germans or have then march through anyway. The other Baltic states had that happen.

However the Winter War is no real example as in 1939 the Russian armed forces had had their morale and best people destroyed by Stalin’s purges. They barely survived the German attack in 1941, so bad was the lingering effects of that purge. But once the end was coming for the Germans in the Russian campaign all of Germany’s allies (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland) saw the writing on the wall and quickly made their own arrangements. They had no choice. It was either accept the Russian terms or the Russians would march through anyway.

The Continuation War while of importance to Finland was from a strategic viewpoint in the wider scope of the Eastern Front a bit of a sideshow. And the F2A, despite having its extraneous equipment removed, was never going to be much good once the Russian threw their best equipment and military against it.

For the Russians the P39 (Little Shaver) was not on par with their best fighters – the Yak family in particular were streets ahead of it.

As I said they were half a generation behind in 1939 and by 1944 they were simply obsolete. Any other interpretation of their respective roles is just wishful thinking. The Finns, I suspect, would gladly have traded the F2A for FW190s if the Germans had let them. For the Russians the P39 was just another aircraft to throw into the Eastern Front meat grinder.

They represent an interesting period in history but we would be unwise to inflate them to star billing.

Thanks Grendel, for putting the facts straight. One thing I forgot to mention.
It is a common misconception that Finland lost the war against Soviet Union. This is not true. The goal of Soviet Union was to conquer Finland. The only goal of Finnish forces was to keep Finland free and independent. The Soviets fell short of their goal, while Finnish forces reached theirs. You cannot lose a war if you succeed in what you aimed to do.
For anyone who is interested in war history I recommend a bit of googling. Search for “Battle of Tali-Ihantala” and be surprised. Finland never folded!

The F2A did well when used by the Finns against the Russians because the Russians didn’t ever field their best forces against the Finns – simple as that. The Rusians were sensible enough to realise that the Germans were the problem, not the Finns who were always fighting a defensive holding campaign. So the Russian forces, military and material, were not of the calibre of those used against the Germans in the main campaigns.

Once the tide turned in the Russian campaign the Finns folded very quickly. Accordingly an aircraft like the F2A could operate in the fairly even combat climate that prevailed prior to 1943/44.

The P39’s main use by the Russians was as a ground attack aircraft – that cannon in the nose was deadly. In fighter v fighter combat it did not have the same track record as the Migs, Yaks and Lagg fighters.

Well, got to disagree.

I’d think Guards fighter and bomber regiments were best that VVS did field, and those did fight on the Finnish front. No second caliber units or equpment there.

I would also object to the “folding quickly”. If you look at the actual happenings, you’d notice that there was no holding. Soviet offensive at summer 1944 was stopped on all fronts, which lead to a ceace-fire and peace negotiations.

Hawkdriver05,

P-39 on the other hand, it was never used as ground attack plane in Soviet service. Any more than any other Soviet plane. They used it as a fighter. But all Soviet fighters did their share of ground support, too, as a tactical air force. The myth about P-39 about being a tank buster or ground attack plane is a western myth, which has no basis in actual history. P-39 just happened to be a good plane in the correct place: the aerial combats of eastern front happened mostly in low to medium altitudes, where the P-39 was on its best. In the Pacific or European theatres aerial combats took place higher, and P-39 just didn’t like to be high, its performance dropped badly there. So eastern front, in Russian hands, P-39 finally found its niche and performed very well as a fighter.

After all, the highest scoring Allied fighter aces flew P-39.

To the Brewsters,

The actual reasons for the B-239s success was quite simple. Excellent pilot training and tactics. The B-239 was also the best model of the Buffalo fighter, light, fast and nimble. FiAF had used the finger four / schwarm formation from the middle 30s, as the first air force in the world, and developed good battle tactics, that were proven to be correct in the Winter War. So when Brewsters arrived, it was in the hands of the best pilots of FiAF, those who had already proven themselves in the Fokker D.XXIs. Add to that the peace 1940-1941, which gave plenty time to practise, train new pilots and train on the new fighters.

Of course the Brewsters declined in efficiency as the war progressed and Soviet fighters were alread proving faster then the BWs in 1942, and in 1943 the Soviets already had much better planes in front line facing the BWs. The 109s from Germany helped to even the situation, but BWs still had to fight, so the BW squadron developed new tactics and flew in larger formations to counter the Soviet skills. The aerial battles were very hard during 1943 and the Finnish pilots have given high respects to the Soviet pilots for their skill and rocketing aggressiviness. But still the Brewsters had to fly and fight. Though, the Brewsters were still the 2nd best fighters of FiAF – even during 1943-1944. Other squadrons had to still fly their Fiat G.50s, Curtiss Hawk 75s and Morane-Saulnier 406/410s, and those guys had it even worse.

While Soviet equipment was, as I guess we all know, mostly somewhat lousy in the first phases of 1941, they did have modern planes as well and especially in the Eastern Karelia the Finnish pilots quickly stumbled into SOviet units with much better equipment – and more skilled Soviet pilots, that gave them very hard time. Also, the lend-lease planes from Murmansk were deployed in large numbers in the Karealia front, with various models of P-40s and Hurricanes encountered in increasing numbers during 1942. One flight of Brewsters had to be deployed to Tiiksjärvi base at one time, as the new Soviet fighters had wrestled the air superiority from the Moranes and Fokkers. It was the higher skill of Finnish pilots and their trust to their mount that allowed the Brewster pilots to deflect the Soviet blows away.

A fighter, that has a 32:1 victory ratio in aerial combat, whose top flier has 39 aerial victories in the type or when a single a/c has 41 confirmed victories on it, can’t be *that* bad, don’t you think? 🙂

Interviews of Finnish pilots, Brewster pilots included
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/

Some BW pilots:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-JoelSavonenEnglish.html
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-OlliSarantolaEnglish.html
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-PokelaEnglish.html

Other resoruces:
http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/faf/brewster.html
http://www.geocities.com/ojoronen/BREWSTER.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Buffalo
http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm
http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/history.htm#FINNISH%20FIGHTER%20TACTICS
http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/finace01.htm
http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/finace02.htm

Although being a Finn I should not, but I tend to agree in many respects with Mr McKay. A few points though. I am not qualified to judge the quality of the Russian forces fighting us in the so called “Coninuation War” of 1941 – 45, in which the Brewster was used. In the preceding “Winter War” of 1939 – 40, though, I find it hard to believe that Russians would have sent their less qualified forces to attack Finland, as they started the war on 30 November, and their intention was to have a victory parade in Helsinki on 6 December, the independenca day of Finland. Well, they did not.
In this campaign certainly the Finns were the underdogs, and I think it is very difficult to deny what a great achievement it was to remain independent against such a huge enemy.

Yes, we were your enemies in the Continuation War, UK even declared war on Finland, on 6 December 1941. We did have a choice, to be on the side of Stalin or Hitler. You could call that being between a rock and a hard place. With hindsight, our choice was good. Otherwise, we would have regained our independence about 15 years ago, just like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia did. And I would not be writing this. Besides, Finland was never part of the so-called Axis powers, we just shared the enemy, and in that, only Soviet Union.

Back to Brewsters. One thing that made a difference with ours compared to yours was that in Finland they were de-navalised, and a lot of armour was removed, making them lighter, more manouverable and agile.
The kill to loss ratio of Finnish Brewsters is the greatest of any combat airplane. Now here I must say (and this is just my gut feeling) that honestly, I believe both sides in our camapigns inflated thei victory claims considerably. Of course, we know exactly what we lost, but it is (has been) difficult to find out the exact Russian losses.

One last note, you say that “once the tide turned in the Russian campaign the Finns folded very quickly”. Not true, the Finns never folded, they just bent backwards a little. In the European theatre of war there were three capital cities which were never occupied by the enemy forces. One was Moscow, another London and the third was Helsinki.

These two planes were not at all popular in the west, yet the Finns LOVED the Brewster and the Soviets did very well with the Airacobra……..so……what gives with that? Were they really terrible aircraft?

The F2A did well when used by the Finns against the Russians because the Russians didn’t ever field their best forces against the Finns – simple as that. The Rusians were sensible enough to realise that the Germans were the problem, not the Finns who were always fighting a defensive holding campaign. So the Russian forces, military and material, were not of the calibre of those used against the Germans in the main campaigns.

Once the tide turned in the Russian campaign the Finns folded very quickly. Accordingly an aircraft like the F2A could operate in the fairly even combat climate that prevailed prior to 1943/44.

The P39’s main use by the Russians was as a ground attack aircraft – that cannon in the nose was deadly. In fighter v fighter combat it did not have the same track record as the Migs, Yaks and Lagg fighters.

I have always thought that we, in the West, over rate the military exploits of the Finns because of the Cold War bias in our thinking, we see them as outnumbered underdogs fighting against the evil Russians. In WW2 the Russians were our allies, and no matter what the basis for the Finnish war effort, they were allied with the Germans our enemy.

The F2A and the P39 were hopelessly outclassed when put up against the main types used in the major theatres in WW2. Sure in the hands of a top pilot even mediocre aircraft can fair well. But the reality is that for every top pilot there are a few thousand ordinary ones who wouldn’t last five minutes in the major theatres in aircraft like the F2A and the P39. Both aircraft had the technical misfortune to be half a generation behind the play.