Iron Dog: Bell P-39 Aircobra

I totally agree. And i did mean to mention that. The Typhoon Mk l was already gearing up for production when the RAF were evaluating the P-39. And this experience led to much concern upon seeing the first combat ready Typhoons. Needless to say the first tiffys were not put into combat duties (Also because of the alarming problems with early Napier sabre engines) Mk l's were sent to training units and Hawkers changed the car door style canopy for an open bullet proof bubble top hood. I think tbh, the RAF were rather spoilt for choice when it came to fighters. They were used to Spitfires, Hurricanes, P-40's, Typhoons, Tempests and Mustangs. So changing to the P-39/P-400 or later the P-63 was deemed a step back in the quality of fighter. I know even the US didnt like flying airacobras. Many US fighter groups were appalled at being forced to swap their Spitfires for Thunderbolts and early Mustangs. So to downgrade to a cobra variant was almost unheard of. The Soviets were suited to them, but i can think of no other country that either liked or had any significant success with them. And im always dubious of Soviet fighter kill claims anyway......

 

It should also be noted they were P-400's, and only one RAF squadron was equipped. There was issue with the mid engine design being a nightmare to work on for ground crews. Britain had no ammunition calibres either made or the tools to make the rounds set up. There was also stability problems with one pilot suggesting, if the fuel tanks were not isolated and used up in a certain order the fighter became unstable. However it should be noted the long range P-51D's had a similar problem. Im not an expert on the Airacobras, but i know without doubt the RAF didnt even put them into active service before getting rid of them.....

 

The reason the cobra was so popular during '41'/'42', was simple. 70% of all Soviet fighters were wiped out in the first year of barbarossa, and until the Soviet airforce could replace and design better fighters, allied lend lease aircraft were literally all they had. If you look you'll notice from mid to late '43', Soviet fighters like the La-5/7 & Yak 9, Migs etc, were coming online and equal to German fighter types of the period. The stats/kill ratios for the airacobras dropped off dramatically after that as more and more Soviet types came into service. Also the dire training and inexperience of Soviet airforce units in early days was absolutely rife. Most planes were lost on the ground, and the ones in the air were shot down as they were obsolete and inferior. Some Soviet aces stuck with the airacobra out of choice/Preference. And many Soviet pilots transferred to the P-63 after they had already become aces and racked up most of their kills on other fighters.

Oh and the RAF received P-400's. Maybe thats the Mk l variant you mentioned. But they didnt see any active combat in the E.T.O.....

 

P-400's of 601 squadron RAF 1941. Fitted with 20mm cannon firing thru prop hub instead of the standard 37mm.

 

Fist of all, the fact is that Soviets demanded more Spitfires and P-39s and asked why Allies sent Hurricanes and P-40s instead of Spitfires and P-39s which they wanted. They did not like very early Mustangs or P-47Ds, IIRC they got 10 very early Mustangs and appr. 200 P-47Ds.

Secondly, as I wrote in my message #5 Three of the five top Soviet aces (Grigori Rechkalov, Nikolai Gulaev and Dmitri Glinka) got most of their kills while flying P-39s and Rechkalov and D. Glinka ended the war in May 1945 still flying P-39s with Guards units operating inside Germany. Gulaev was badly wounded in Aug 44 while flying P-39 with 129 GIAP. All 3 got some kills earlier while flying some domestic fighter types and then got most of their kills while flying Cobras, which they used to the end of their wartime careers. You can check by yourself e.g. from here
Речкалов Григорий Андреевич - "Советские лётчики-асы. Герои воздушных войн 1936-1953 гг."
Гулаев Николай Дмитриевич - Советские асы. Герои воздушных войн 1936-1953 гг.

On both pages there is a list of confirmed kills, that not mean real kills but victory claims accepted by the VVS
For Rechkalov types he used while achieving his kills are I-153, MiG-3, Yak-1 and Airacobra, for Gulaev MiG-3, Yak-1 and Airacobra in that order.

 

Wikipedia:

Total Soviet WW2 aircraft losses were 17,900 bombers, 23,600 ground attacker, 46,800 fighter aircraft, and 18,100 training, transport and other aircraft; an overall loss of over 106,400 aircraft; 46,100 in combat and 60,300 non-combat. Of which, 18,300 Lend-Lease aircraft were lost. Grigori F. Krivosheev states: "A high percentage of combat aircraft were lost in relation to the number available on 22 June 1941: 442% (total losses) or 216% (combat losses). In the air force over a half of losses were non-combat losses.

 

Hello Canuck
Yes, but one must remember that those figures has a different meaning than that used in the West
"Non combat" losses in the VVS included aircraft which were simply worn out or considered too old and were scrapped. So the caunting goes like this:
on 22/06/41 Red AFs had 32 100 a/c (of those 17 900 were combat aircraft)
on 10 may 1945 : 64 200 (47 300)

Between those days RA recieved altogether 138 500 soviet and foreign planes (77 500 combat a/c)

So the losses were 170 600-64 200 = 106 400 for all reason, including wear and tear.

 

But only trained squadron pilots would be expected to attempt to fly a fully laden P51. The P39 had a different order of instability problems - as evidenced by loss rates in training fo 2.3 x as high.

IRRC the P400 was fitted with 20mm rather than 37mm cannon. I think the export iorder was cancelled and ssome USAAF types ended up flying them over New Guinea

In mid WW2 the RAF did not have a need for a fighter aircraft that did not perform well over 15,000 ft. Worse still it was the kind of aircraft optimised for Army Co-operation. The Mustang started RAF service with Army Co-operation squadrons, initially with the Mustang 1 (P51A) which were replaced by the Mustang II (P51B or C) from late 1943.

Although the Typhoon is the RAF aircraft best associated with Normandy in 1944, 2nd TAF included four wings, a total of twelve squadrons of Mustangs. These carried out armed recce and Arty R over Normandy.

So by early 1944 the RAF was operating about 250 of the best long ranger escort fighters in the world - but only in low level tactical reconnaissance, in roles which overlapped with the Taylorcraft Auster!

 

Of the Airacobras offered to the RAF,the first 150 aircraft due for delivery were to be Mark 1s which was Bells Model 14 and the axe fell on the delivery after about 80.Clearly there was no solution to the engine layout design shortcomings.Engineering products can usually be modded in the light of experience but this unorthodox design was fundamental to the aircraft.

As regards the engine layout design,it's difficult to accept that aircraft designers would contemplate such a radical design.It would appear that the designers were drawn into the advantage of being able to increase the firepower at the nose.

Throughout the production run of 9556 aircraft which finished in August 1944,the type was subject to many modifications,the last version being the
P 39Q of which 4905 were produced.4924 of all versions were allocated to the Russians under Lend Lease and of these 4758 were delivered with the others lost in transit.The aircraft was the most numerous of the aircraft supplied to Russia by the US.

By February 1944,the USAAF had 2105 on charge but by August 1944 these had been replaced in front line units by later types of aircraft.

The RAF Duxford Air Fighting Development Unit found the aircraft most disappointing.Although a pleasure to fly, the P 39 Model 14 designated as the Airacobra Mark 1 was definitely inferior to the Spitfire and Hurricane in rate of climb and ceiling.The speed specification on test was 33mph lower than guaranteed which led Bells to admit that their test aircraft was one ton lighter and had highly polished surfaces.Furthermore, the aircraft required a 750 yard take off which would limit its flexibility for use on small fighter airfields.Armament accessibility was very poor and while firing the armaments, a lethal dose of CO built up in the cockpit.

Mods were carried out and the aircraft was put on air warfare operational trials on 9 October.1941.4 out of the 11 aircraft received by No 601 Squadron were staged through Manston to strafe targets on the French coast.Lack of spares,serviceability/availability problems and essential modifications delayed further operational assessment and the aircraft was withdrawn from operational service in December 1941.

In an overview of the aircraft the USAAF history records that the Bell fighter as specially disappointing...possessing a low ceiling....slow rate of climb and relative lack of manoeuvrability which put pilots at a decided disadvantage where ever they fought.

It was regarded as a poor interceptor and practically useless over 17000 feet but in another role,that of low level support (as confirmed by the Russians) it excelled.It proved to be capable of absorbing an amazing amount of battle damage and for some it gained a reputation of being a "pilot's aircraft"

The Airacobra's service in the Pacific as recorded by USAAF history is damning from the point of view of availability and performance....."The Airacobra,even in a good state of repair,was unable to meet the Japanese fighters on equal terms".This reflected the performance of the No 35 Fighter Group whose No 40 and 41 Fighter Squadrons had the task of intercepting Japanese attacks on Port Moresby while equipped with the P 39D and the P 400 (Airacobra Mark 1 / Model 14)

 

Also confirmed by the Cactus Air Force on Guadalcanal. Although there it was used more as a dive bomber than in more conventional low level support. They were able to be accurate with it even though not trained in dive bombing and in a plane not designed for it.

 

In my experience with researching Soviet pilot claims and records, i find it all rather dubious at best. In all honesty the Soviets didnt like the Spitfire. And other than just a simple dislike for the fighter there seems to be little genuine reason, other than maybe the short range. And the fact Soviet pilots seemed to prefer a larger calibre of gun/cannon. As for Soviet aces, there is an awful lot of "possibles" & "probables". Not to mention the bulk of Soviet aces with 15 or more "kills", all died before the end of the war. The list of Soviet aces "killed in action" is incredible. With over a dozen dying after ramming an enemy aircraft after running out of ammo or a stoppage. But again, these claims are highly dubious. The truth is, most ww2 aviation writers had to rely on German accounts and documents when recounting aerial action in the east. And i have agree to disagree about any claims that most/all top Soviet aces got their kills in a P-39. The fighter described by the US airforce themselves as the most disliked and inferior fighter in the allies inventory.

The luftwaffe had fighters that could perform well at high altitude and could pretty much control the fight. After all, the Airacobra’s slow climb rate made it terrible at its original role of intercepting high flying enemy bombers. The P-39 centrally-mounted engine also pushed the center of gravity to the rear, making it prone to vicious spins once cannon ammunition was expended from the nose. And as said before, prior to the U.S. entry in World War II, the United Kingdom received more than 200 export-model Airacobras known as P-400s, which were downgraded to a 20-millimeter cannon in the propeller hub. But Royal Air Force pilots had fought many high-altitude battles with the Luftwaffe, and hated the Airacobra. Only 601 Squadron operated the Airacobra, flying the American fighters on a single combat mission before the type was withdrawn from British service. When the first two U.S. Army Air Force fighter groups arrived in England in the summer of 1942, the RAF persuaded the Americans to leave their P-39's behind and use British Spitfire Mk V's instead! Which they did....

A few P-39 Army Air Force squadrons did eventually see action in North Africa and Italy. There, they rendered decent service largely in a ground attack role capitalizing on their hefty firepower and good low-altitude handling providing air support for the Allied force in North Africa and Italy, and amphibious landing at Anzio and Southern France. However, the Airacobra’s initial entry into action proved inauspicious. The P-39 played a briefer but more prominent role in the Pacific theater. But the poorly regarded fighters traded off a 1:1 kill ratio against more maneuverable Japanese aircraft with more experienced pilots, including the dreaded A6M Zero. However, P-39s repeatedly struggled to climb fast enough to intercept Japanese bombers above 20,000 feet, and its short range of 500 miles limited its effectiveness across the far-flung Pacific Islands.

Now, all those nasty P-400's the British couldnt wait to get rid of were packed off to Russia, and guess what. Yep they loved them! But i'll tell you why, unlike the high-altitude air battles of the strategic bombing campaigns in Western Europe, the majority of air operations over the Eastern Front occurred at low-altitude in support of troops on the ground—a domain in which the P-39’s deficiencies barely mattered. Furthermore, Soviet airfields were generally close to the frontlines, rendering the Airacobra’s short range irrelevant. Each P-39 also came with its own radio, a rarity amongst World War II Soviet fighters. Combined with more comfortable pilot’s seats and more generous armor plating compared to Soviet designs, the American fighter plane soon earned the affectionate nickname Kobrukshka (“Little Cobra”). Not because they were good dogfighters and scored hundreds of kills against German fighters that could perform at high altitude. And quite frankly the Soviet cobra kill claims are pure poppycock!
No offence, im not hating just saying.....

 

Exactly. A bomber interceptor that was so bad it turned into a low level ground attack plane. Not a deadly dogfighter that racked up hundreds of kills. As a dogfighter the P-39 was awful. Possibly the worst fighter of ww2

 

Hello KS
Really, maybe some of your sources on Eastern Front Air War are a bit outdated.

On the top Soviet aces dying before the end of the war:

10th highest in accepted victories, Krasnov, Nikolai Mikhailovich (44+2) KIFA 29 Jan 1945
14th Serov, Vladimir Georgievich (39+6) KIA 26 Jun 1944, over Karelia Isthmus
26th Klubov, Alexandr Fedorovich (31+3) KIFA 1 Nov 1944
28th Tarasov, Pavel Timofeevich (31+1) KIFA 29 Jul 1944

That out of the top 30 aces, to me that doesn’t look like bulk, Soviets had over 600 aces with 15 or more “kills” but I have not time to type more but a quick look clearly shows that bulk of them survived the war.

If you have studied air war, you should know that one much look critically all “official” victory/kill lists, overclaiming was the norm, some AFs were better in claim accuracy, some worse but in the end it was up to pilots how accurate their claims were. I agree that the VVS as an AF was not amongst the most accurate in its victory confirmation process.

Are you saying that P-39 was worse that Brewster F2A-/Buffalo? Have you read what the Marine Corps pilots said about it after Midway? And its first version was probably most loved WWII fighter amongst Finnish fighter pilots during the 1941-mid 1943 period, called as “Pearl of the sky”. Which fighter was good is a bit complicated question. On Brewster fighter its t/o weight went up every time when a new version appeared, it got more power but wing loading suffered.

One must remember that fighting on Eastern Front was predominantly ground war and Il-2s, Hs 129s and Ju 87s flew at low or medium altitudes and most air fighting was fought at those altitudes. At least 1941-42 “Messers” (Bf 109s) were much feared by most Soviet fighter pilots but Soviets learned, there was saying that Germans were good even if hard teachers. And of course for the Soviets important was how well P-39 suited for the combat on the Eastern Front, they really didn’t care how well it suited for combat over Western Europe.

And I didn’t put the links to Soviet pilots’ victory lists to show how many German planes they shot down but to show that contrary you claim
a) the top P-39 aces got most of their accepted victory claims later in the war after first claiming few/some kills while flying Soviet made fighters.
b)Top aces flying Guards fighter regiments used P-39s to the end of the war.

One must take the kills as what they are, accepted victory claims but unverified from opponent’s documents. But if you don’t think that Stalin’s SU accepted claims made by pilots flying Lend-lease a/c more easily than those made by pilots flying domestically produced fighters, then the fact that so many Soviet top aces were flying P-39s should make you think why, was P-39 after all so poor fighter in Eastern Front environment.

And on Zero, Australian tests produced the conclusion that even Spit Vc (Trop) was an underdog in air combat against Zero under 20,000 ft. the answer to that problem was G-suit, it allowed so hard high speed manoeuvring that Zero pilot blacked out. And IIRC P-39s did not achieve 1:1 kill ratio against Zeros in real world in 1942 but somewhat worse than 1:2 as did P-40s. And even Darwin Spits were roughly handed by Zeros. It was always also a question of pilot quality, tactics used and enviroment, not just how good or poor the a/c were. One must remember that IJNAF fighter pilots were exceptionally good at that time.

 

Not the worst, just mis-employed in a war for which it was not designed.

The idea behind the Defiant was copied elsewhere

 

Hello
OT but gives some comparision to the losses of the top Soviet P-39 aces.

LW top Eastern Front Aces who died there, the order numbers are according to the kills on the Eastern Front, not all kills. Out of the top 30.
4th Kittel, Otto (267) 14 (some say 16) Feb 1945 Shot down by Il-2(s)
12th Hafner, Anton (184 on EF + 20 N. Africa) 17 Oct 1944 hit trees during low level combat with Soviet fighters (Yaks?)
18th Stotz, Max (173 + 16) 19 Aug 1943 MIA, last seen bailing out during combat with Soviet fighters (Yaks?)
19th Schmidt, Heinz (173) 5 Sept 1943 MIA after aerial combat, might be a friendly fire case (Hungarian fighter)
21st Ademeit, Horst (164 + 2) 7 Aug 1944 MIA, last seen pursuiting Il-2s over Soviet lines
23rd Sturm, Heinrich (158) 22 Dec 1944 KIFA
26th Beisswenger, Hans (151 + 1) 6 March 1943 KIA, rammed by a LaGG-3

Western Front was more dangerous to top LW aces but Eastern Front was also dangerous place.

 

Wingleader Publishing (WingLeader - Aviation Books and Collectables), the aviation company responsible for some great series such as Battle of Britain Combat Archive, Luftwaffe Crash Archive and the new Nachtjagd Combat Archive publishing a free on-line aviation magazine. The next edition is due out March 1 and contains the following article sure to be of interest for those following this thread:

 

The publisher blurb is a little careless. All the Allison V-1710s had superchargers, just not ones designed for high altitude performance.

 

Hello
as Dave wrote, all V-1710s had supercharger and that was the only one in P-39s, so they had only one-speed one-stage supercharger, P-38s but Lightning Mk Is/P-322s had turbosuperchargers on top of that, P-63s had second supercharger added, so they had two-stage supercharger.

 

Agree. They also added a second supercharger to the Allison F-82s. It worked but not very well. Supercharger with turbo was the way to go for the Americans for high altitude performance. P-38, P-47, B-17 etc

The USN actually deleted the turbo from the PB4-Y2 (naval B-24) since it was optimized for low altitude work.