America's Trash Became The Soviets' Treasure: Bell P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra

[@jarink1]

I have read that one the Soviet's favorite things about the P-39 was it had a reliable radio.

[@Green-aider]

Because the Soviets tech was not reliable

[@tomspettel3646]

Also the armament was favored sovit pilots stated they would shoot one maybe two 37mm shots at german bombers and it was over for them.

[@KyleCostin-yv2bx]

And a heater

[@AlexKarasev]

My paternal grandpa was a frontline mechanic for these and my uncle (mom's brother) had done course work on it for his aerospace degree. The latter told me about the tube port under the cabin the freshmen in his day were told needed to be "cleared of stale air" in maintenance - that of course was a piss tube. Yes, pilots were able to relieve themselves in mid air in this fighter. This was a magnificent machine. The centrally mounted engine not only helped with pitch & yaw rates & made the plane easy on a pilot to throw around, like a mid-engine supercar, it also protected the pilot from bullets from behind and made landing on unpaved and damaged airstrips (to say nothing of ditching) many times safer. People who cite the "lack" of a supercharger on it perhaps don't realize the extent of infighting anong the American firms for fat gov't contracts. The superchargers required considerable know-how and specialized skills to make and were supplied by one company, running 24x7, and it was the whole point to not let Bell Aircraft have any - so it couldn't compete for the coveted US fighter role which required high-altitude bonber escort capability.

[@WanderfalkeAT]

@@AlexKarasev Well that Engine in the back made the Cobra stall easily in a slow speed maneuver, especcially if the tanks were not full or the ammo run nearly dry. And it was a unrecoverable stall, mostly leading into a flatspin. It was great to land thoug, if not approaching too slow that is.

[@CecilHabermacher]

Years ago, I read a story in the late, lamented "Air & Space Smithsonian" from someone who'd been a "Pinball" pilot at Wright-Patterson. He landed his plane and there was an older dignitary who was interested in the plane and what it did. Our hero showed the plane off, then said goodbye. He asked someone who the older fellow was only to be told "Oh, that's Orville..." Yup. *That* Orville.

[@griffinblades8475]

My dumbass first thought redenbacher lol

[@CecilHabermacher]

@@griffinblades8475 LOL

[@mikearmstrong8483]

😣

[@JollySchwaggermann]

Msybe the Hitler supporter - Lindbergh?​@@griffinblades8475

[@JollySchwaggermann]

​@@griffinblades8475😢or maybe that Hitler supporter Charley Lindbergh

[@arrowlock]

Chuck Yeager mentioned in his 1985 autobiography book that he would have "gladly flown the P-39 off to war." He loved flying that bird.

[@williamzk9083]

I remember reading the memoirs of a German pilot Heinz Knock (I think) who encountered P-39 (the Germans though they were fighting P-51A or A-36 at the time) while flying Me 109G during the invasion of Italy. The Germans had a lot of trouble dealing with the agile P-39. The aircraft like anything with the mechanical supercharger versions of the Allison started developing poor performance above 15,000ft. Two speed supercharger with a larger impeller would have improved things and the two stage versions that even more.

[@tomhart837]

@@williamzk9083 There were plans to test the RR Merlin in the p-39 but never done due to demand of other programs for the Merlin. Would have been interesting I think. Down low it could pretty much hang with everything .

[@Vigilante-k4q]

@@arrowlock I think if they changed the canopy, it would have been better, with the Wright engine it was pretty quick

[@arrowlock]

@@Vigilante-k4q Wright certainly built some very fine piston powerplants. The Allison V-1710 was a great engine too, however had they been able to cram a two-stage supercharger into the P-39, it might have been a much more outstanding fighter. It sure flew great down low, and most of the Red Army pilots were indeed fighting the Germans at lower altitudes where the P-39 excelled. Just curious, would you have gotten rid of the car-door canopy? It did seem like it would have been plenty easy for a pilot to get out of it, but did risk hitting the tailplane while bailing.

[@Vigilante-k4q]

@@arrowlock I read that if you could invert to bail in the p 39 was the best way. Some Russian pilots said you could roll it over and pop out to miss the vertical. But if on fire I'll take any chance I can to get out

[@floycewhite6991]

Funny how America produces excellent "low-spec" fighters to give away for free to cash-strapped allies. The F-5 comes to mind.

[@Cuccos19]

Actually P-39 was not much cheaper if it was any means cheaper than the P-51 for example. Also the F6F Hellcat was not an expensive aircraft. Maybe not correct but I can remember these numbers (depends on production years and run ups): P-38: 100-130/140 thousand USD P-39: ?? thousand USD P-40: 40-45 thousand USD P-47: 80-110 thousand USD P-51 45-50 thousand USD P-63: ?? thousand USD F6F 35(!) thousand USD F4U: ?? maybe 70-80 thousand USD

[@Nafeels]

The F-5 is so good many countries still use it today, almost 70 years after it first flew. Only beaten by the MiG-21 in sheer numbers. We only recently (2015) retired it after 40 years.

[@BerkskinBlackmon]

I like the odd ball aircraft of ww 2 the underdogs thay did job

[@alexsis1778]

@@Nafeels Also don't forget that the T-38 Talon supersonic jet trainer is a variant of the F-5 and is still the standard jet trainer of the USAF. Its also used for training and is the primary chase aircraft of NASA. As a side story I'll never forget reading about the F-5E the soviets received after the fall of Vietnam. Vladimir Kondaurov among others flew it against various soviet planes. It absolutely slaughtered the contemporary Mig-2bis1 in dogfights. They were equals at high speed but the superior aerodynamics gave it a real advantage as the speed dropped. Frustrated they decided to set it against the newer Mig-23M to kick its butt. After an agonizing 4-5 minutes the Mig-23M lost its turn fight as well. Despite the pilot being permitted to break any angle of attack limitations and manually adjusting the wing sweep for optimum performance. This was a complete shock to the soviets and completely changed recommendations of how to fight the F-5 in the Mig-21 because prior to this thrust to weight ratio was everything in soviet aviation. The F-5 showed to them that aerodynamics do matter a lot. The Mig-23 losing was classified top secret and the F-5 was disassembled for study. Many of the ideas and features used in its design were then included in the Su-25 and the cockpit layout was utilized in the Mig-29.

[@jasonjones8183]

They were not free, American taxpayers paid for them. Then Russia flexed on us after ww2, leading to the cold war adding to more taxmoney wasted on global security that did not help the average American taxpayers. World trade is not good for the average American, it's great for our rich. Our taxes are used to protect the investments of our rich while taxpayers get no return on our money.

[@dennismitchell4132]

My father flew the P-39 off Guadalcanal and Bougainville in the Pacific during World War II. He actually loved the plane, but realized it wasn’t any good above 12,000 feet. When used below that altitude, it could hold its own against any aircraft being flown pre-1943. Most P-39’s in the Pacific saw extensive use as a CAS platform and the attack role, which it excelled at. The argument can be made that the P-39 / P-400 were the key ingredient to the eventual capture of Guadalcanal where they targeted Japanese ground forces and supply shipments daily. This freed up other aircraft to fly defensive operations against Japanese aircraft. Guadalcanal is why the P-39 deserves so much more respect in US hands. Without its contribution in that battle, Guadalcanal is not successfully held without a much larger loss of US servicemen.

[@michaeldavid6284]

Respectfully disagree. The contribution of a handful of P-39s against Japanese ground and air forces was minimal to say the least. The island was captured and held due to the efforts of Marine and Army soldiers on the ground, Navy and Marine Wildcats that fought the daily Japanese air raids, and the Navy's defense from the Japanese fleet at sea. Not saying the P-39s made no contribution or to dismiss the efforts of their pilots in combat, but their impact in the big picture barely registers.

[@tomspettel3646]

@@michaeldavid6284 the p-400 made a pivotal attack on Japanese positions at guadlecanal and that is documented as well as success with Ground attack missions till ammunition and ordnance ran out. Using depth charges wrapped with chain for attack missions. Yes there was few of them but that was the same for the rest of the aircraft in the cactus airforce and most were taken out from broken landing gear. The F4F was another that suffered from the same problem.

[@tomhart837]

@@michaeldavid6284 Have read several sources that say P-39s/400's did a lot to break up the Jap troop concentrations during the battle for Edson's Ridge which probably saved Henderson field which was the key to our victory.

[@WanderfalkeAT]

It definately shined in the Close Air Support role there! Even if the losses when they met Zero's were damn high. It helped tremendeously when the first P-38 and P-47 arrived to replace the P-39/40, at least the ones still in existense.

[@IRNHYD]

Not to impugn the valor, bravery and gallantry of the ground forces on Guadalcanal… but your evaluation not only completely glosses over the contributions of the Navy at Guadalcanal, but denies them any credit for holding that island.. America lost both the Wasp and the Hornet during that campaign. Saratoga was so heavily damaged that she had to sail for the mainland to get permanent repairs. US navy carrier forces bore the brunt of Japans determined efforts to resupply and retake that island., That left just Enterprise as the sole American carrier in the Pacific. My Grandfather… a chief petty officer… and a survivor of Yorktown/Hammann at Midway, was stationed aboard Enterprise, during this time. The big E was hit numerous times and hastily patched up. Gramps told me that at that point, a large hand painted sign appeared high above the hangar deck. It read : Enterprise Vs Japan. In all, the Us navy lost two fleet carriers, four heavy cruisers, two light cruisers, and 17 destroyers in stopping the Japanese from resupplying their forces on Guadalcanal, while supporting ground forces closely with naval aircraft.

[@Centurion101B3C]

I have a;ways found the P39/63 the most aesthetically pleasing fighters. Pretty almost. This particular presentation deals mostly with the 'big chunks'of information about this line of fighters, but internally and in cockpit details, a lot of innovitaive work was done that is seen in later aircraft. Anyway, this fighter was pretty much adored by its Soviet users as well as with the French and made an excellent record for itself in specifically those theatres of the war.

[@IRNHYD]

As long as the combat occurred below 15000 feet and airspeed was maintained above 300 mph. Nothing could touch the P-39… if flown by a pilot that understood its strengths.

[@rogueplastic]

Now I wonder if there was an instance where a Finnish Buffalo had to fight a Soviet P-39.

[@Cuccos19]

I cannot recall what Finnish fighter was that what shot down Russian flown Spitfire and maybe an Airacobra. I remembered that was a captured I-153 biplane, but I could not find any source recently. I cannot remember where I read that back those days. But I'm almost 99% sure that Finnish F2A fighters clashed with Airacobras. I don't know how the Spitfire came to my mind, as I think they were exclusively used for air defense of Moscow. But maybe they were in Leningrad too?

[@LuisLopez-zh9kh]

@@Cuccos19 Those were probably Hawker Hurricanes since they came from the Northern sea route via Murmansk that early in the war.

[@KF99]

@@rogueplastic Finnish P-36 vs Soviet P-40 could be even more ironic.

[@tomoplt5437]

​​@@Cuccos19The third best Finish ace Eino Antero Luukkanen (Brewster Buffalo BW393) shot down soviet's Spitfire in October 30, 1942. He got three Airacobras in 1944 but flying Bf 109G at that time. Total score 60 planes. Source is his book: "Fighter over Finland".

[@arrowlock]

@rogueplastic Great question, now you've got me wondering that as well 🤔😁

[@plasticslave4653]

The aviation museum I volunteer at has two P-39s undergoing restoration right now. The (former) airport where the museum is located was a staging point for Aircobras on their way to Russia. Really informative video; I had no idea so many of the P-63s were made. Thanks!

[@Cuccos19]

Wow, that's so cool! I would really love to hear more about it. I wish I could do similar activity. We had some salvages from Lake Balaton in Hungary - IL-2 Sturmovik, some Bf-109s, one was within a several years - but I didn't find the way to be part of a team.

[@spectreandromedus8661]

Do y'all's ground techs add weight to the nose (p-39) to make up for the imbalance problem?

[@SoloRenegade]

the US continued to use the P-39 into the Philippines campaign into 1944. It also served in the south pacific, Alaska, North Africa, Italy, and with the Soviets. It was good enough teh US kept them in frontline service on numerous fronts for many years.

[@heyhoe168]

Title is misleading. P-39 was an excellent plane. However it was not popular, case it was too demanding for a pilot skill. in USSR it was known because it was favourite plane of a top dog ace, not because every pilot dreamed to fly it.

[@frustratedfriar9632]

Wowee! At last I've found a video maker who DOESN'T use those horrible AI voices AND who only uses photos and video of the actual subject of the tale. It is really great to hear a real person talking and what you said was interesting with no statements repeated. I shall be checking out more of your videos. Keep it real, mate, and thanks.

[@catfood_03_4stray]

The Soviets effectuated modifications that reduced the overall weight of the aircraft. The wing mounted machineguns where removed and the protective steal armor behind the pilot's seat too. Late versions were designed to meet the Soviet pilot's requisites and had a compact wing without space for munition belts increasing thus the G-limit ( P-39Q-10 ) and these versions were equipped with a more powerful engine.

[@rocketeerPM2500]

"The Soviets effectuated modifications ...." Ouch. The word is EFFECTED. And "....protective steal armor...." should read STEEL. God save the English language!

[@tedarcher9120]

They didn't really have a more powerful engines, all aircobras were very powerful, up to 2000 hp, but it was dialed in by mechanics in the field depending on air temperature. As the war went on Allison factory also increased approved boost ratings but nobody followed them anyway

[@ДмитрийСоциленков]

The USSR had a shortage of aviation gasoline, especially high-octane, because of this, the P-39 flew mainly on 95-octane gasoline until at least mid-1944 and could not use the WEP mode. Because of this, the characteristics of Soviet cobras were often lower than in American trials. But in the USSR were mainly supplied N, M, and Q models, which had better characteristics than the D-series. Wing machine guns were not removed from all Soviet P-39s, but some Soviet cobras had less weight than American ones.

[@andrewreynolds9371]

Every day, I am reminded of the saying "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

[@seandobson499]

We paid off every single penny of our war debt to America and Canada, making the final payment in 2006, but don't get me wrong, I am an old British soldier from a long line of family members who served in our forces and I know full well that we could not have won the war without America and men and women from all over the world and so many of those men and women were killed and injured in defeating the Germans, Japanese and their allies that we should never forget that debt.

[@yes_head]

IMO the P-39 is under-appreciated (beyond the use the Soviets got out of it). We easily forget that -- along with the F4F -- it constituted the original Cactus Air Force fighter component on Guadalcanal. Sure, it couldn't do much against high-altitude bombers or Zeros, but it was very good at attacking ground targets and shipping, and there was plenty of that in the first 6 months of the campaign. To quote an article on the Smithsonian website, "In one instance, three P-39s strafed an open field filled with hundreds of Japanese troops; the attack was credited with blunting an offensive against what became known as “Bloody Ridge,” and earned the mission leader the Navy Cross."

[@oleran4569]

I've always wondered if there were any "backroom shenanigans" involved in the initial supercharger removal.

[@edwardpate6128]

@@oleran4569 You mean turbocharger. They still had a supercharger.

[@petesheppard1709]

This was where some of the returned RAF Airacobras were employed. They were hamstrung with British oxygen systems, which were incompatible with the Americans, so the pilots couldn't function above 10,000 feet. They also had 20mm cannon instead of the 37mm. Pilots derisively called them 'P-400s'--A P-40 with a Zero on its tail. As you said, they did great work in ground attack, but that was cold comfort for fighter pilots.

[@shannonterry4863]

Many of these were P-400s (another export designation for the P-39) that had been rejected for export. They ended up in the South Pacific as Army Air Corp planes as a stop gap.

[@uberduberdave]

I think part of the reason P-39s were found to be defecient in the South Western Pacific was that Army Air Force crews flying them had to be escorted by Marine Wildcats. Most of surviving Army P-39 pilots later wound up flying P-38s, and thankfully so...

[@jimr5703]

The P-39 was an excellent aircraft. Not the fasted, or most heavily armed or armored, but it was easy to maintain and extremely maneuverable. That center mounted engine gave it an incredible ability to turn, but it was not forgiving. Bonus, the central weight bias required the main wing to be mounted further back, giving the pilot excellent ability to scan for targets below.

[@gryfandjane]

Regarding your comment on engine location, weight is not added to the tail of a front-engined aircraft to counterbalance the engine… it’s the fore/aft position of the wing that determines the CG. On the P-39, the wing was located well back, toward the midpoint of the fuselage. In the case of (for example) the Hawker Typhoon, with the massive Napier Sabre engine in the nose, the wing was positioned forward, with the leading edge overlapping the rear of the engine.

[@matheuscerqueira7952]

Weight can be added too. When they were fitting the Merlin to the P-51, the extra weight was balanced by the addition of an extra fuel tank behind the cockpit, together with moving the wing a bit

[@Tacticaviator7]

Well logically both of these can change the flight stability.

[@jodysanders6445]

This is why I usually read the comments. Because I might learn something.

[@TomBall-r4d]

The Soviet opinion of the Airocobra contrasts with that of the Spitfire (which they thought was total crap). It had useful advantages such as strong undercarriage, great heating, ventilation and a comfortable cockpit (both faults with the Spit). It also used low octane fuel again the Spit did not. And had a great radio

[@recoilrob324]

I've read some about the Soviet use of P-39 and one of the recurring themes was that the climate control system was MUCH appreciated by the pilots in the winter. The Soviet mindset didn't include much about pilot comfort and they felt absolutely pampered by the heat and defrosting ability in the P-39's. Even when they were flying MiG-15's Chuck Yeager and others test flew captured aircraft and said the canopy would fog when you changed altitudes and that they still hadn't figured out that a comfortable pilot is a happy pilot.

[@ptrgreeny]

The North Korean Mig15 those guys flew actually had a faulty heater. The pilot's cooling systems however...ran off alcohol. Guess where that went...seriously. 😂 Their WW2 era stuff was rarely built to specs due to extreme need, so those pilots had it rough. Those P-39s would have been like being given the keys to a luxury car.

[@christophergagliano2051]

The Russians didn't even have heat in their homes let alone their airplanes

[@charlestaylor253]

In America, pilot fights with plane. In Soviet Union, plane fights with pilot!...

[@phann860]

The Russians never really appreciated ergonomics in their equipment.

[@Jamespwickstromw]

everything the Americans send was liked and well recieved in that communist shithole, except for maybe the m3 lee

[@Scrat335]

The Soviets loved these planes. They called them little shavers because they handled so well shaving the tops off of wheat stalks and trees.

[@simplsquam]

Bell aircraft has always been so interesting to me. Making the odd P39, first supersonic plane, the huey, America's first jet fighter, and spacecraft technology. It really just seems like they went to get as many accomplishments as possible

[@anthonyrowland9072]

The made the L-39 which was a swept wing p-63 for testing and they made the xp-77. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_XP-77

[@simplsquam]

@@anthonyrowland9072 I forgot about that one!

[@anthonyrowland9072]

@@simplsquam "What if we just put a cannon in a 30s air racer?" Like a TaleSpin plane lol

[@joelex7966]

The air war in the West was mainly high altitude fighting or defending bombers. The war in the East was much different mainly fought at low or intermediate altitudes. The Air Cobra lacked an effective turbo charger making it less effective above 20,000 feet.

[@tankdood329]

Like all of my favorite vehicles the p39/63 are my favorite ww2 aircraft’s because they’re neat

[@grayflaneur4854]

"Don't give me a P-39.. with an engine that's mounted behind.. it'll pitch and roll and dig a big hole.. Don't give me a P-39." This little rhyme was in Chuck Yeager's autobiography, but I recall he liked it quite a bit in training. The Soviets liked it a lot.

[@ScreamingSturmovik]

23:42 "now allegedly and i say and i say allegedly", Mr. Foghorn leghorn over here talking about airplanes lol

[@arrowlock]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppapn2SCoJ2Uo8kfeature=shared 🤪🛩️💥🤣

[@timcromartie8101]

Great video! The P-39 was a gem that found its place in the sun over the skies of Russia, where most air combat took place below 20,000 feet.

[@RomanVarl]

In USSR the P-39 got stripped of wing-mounted 50 cal guns to improve agility and relied on nose-mounted 37mm canon alone. "One shot, one kill"

[@JohnMccormack-y5r]

Uh. No.

[@cjackmond]

The article seems to imply that the P39 was used for ground attack.The Russians mostly use it as an air to air fighter, with good success.

[@erniedesantis597]

The Army didn't ask bell to get rid of the turbo charger. After NACA did wind tunnel testing they decided they could clean up the aerodynamics and reduce drag by removing the turbo. The P-39 had a very high drag coefficient. Bell hoped that that reduction in drag would compensate for the loss of power of the turbo. I'm sure cost factored in too but the turbo was removed in a quest to improve aerodynamics.

[@junyutan2172]

Surely its not a smart idea to effectively reduce hp the higher you went. As in the aero gain would never compensate. Yea i get the us werent expecting high altitude engagements but bruh

[@ikekelly3157]

Not accurate. Turbos were restricted from P-63’s due to priority given to the existing aircraft already in large production. P-38, P-47, B-17, & B-24 were aircraft that all General Electric’s Turbo-supercharger (2 stage) built were dedicated to. Later, B-29 and special prototypes (XP-58, XP-67, XP-71, XP-72). Plus the War Department requested no Turbo-supercharges be included in any Lend Lease transaction, due to political non-release of proprietary technology abroad. Ridiculous, as Britain licensed Packard to build the Merlin with their proprietary 2 stage supercharger design as used in the P-51 and Spitfire. Basically, the War Dept did not want Russia to have the design as their designation of an ally was tumultuous later in the war.

[@erniedesantis597]

I don't know what the P63 has to do with my comments about the P39. Different aircraft (although related in concept and overall presentation). The P63 to my knowledge was never designed to be turbo-supercharged it was desigened to use the newer "mid-war" multi-stage and multi-speed engine driven supercharger (not turbo-superchager) technology. The same type of forced induction system used on aircraft like the Merlin powered P51s. The pre-war P39 was intended to be a turbo-supercharged high interceptor. It (and the P38) was designed a bit too early to benefit from NACA testing and as a result the aerodynamics of the prototype with the turbo were awful. This is happening in 1938/39 mind you; the war hasn't started in Europe yet. Bell redsigned the aircraft to clean up the aerodynamics and omitted the turbo because of the drag the induction and cooling scoops created. It had zero to do with Lend-lease as it wasn't a thing at the time and the P39 wasn't even a production aircraft available to the USAAC let alone the Soviets or British. The omission of the Turbo was a bad call on Bell's part but what everyone forgets is the general performance of the P39 is on par or better than the P40.

[@erniedesantis597]

​@@junyutan2172 Removing the turbo was a poor idea. It was a mistake but it's what Bell did.

[@deananderson6896]

The king cobra and p39 aeroplane were fine airplanes. A lot of of pilots would train in these. Its unique and still a great design.

[@VidarLund-k5q]

Fun fact. The very first plastic Revell model I built when twelve years old was the Bell P-39 Airacobra in the US Army Airforce brown livery. It differed very much from my favourite Hurricane and Spitfire WW2 fighters.

[@cynthiakoehne7004]

I love my neon tetras, and I have several different varieties, including black ones, looking soooo cool under uv light!

[@sakkra93]

I wonder why the RAF didn't send their Airacobras over to the Desert Air Force. The DAF primarily conducted ground attack and low-mid level dogfights and bomber intercepts, where the Airacobra would be much more suited, rather than the high altitude combat going on over the Western Front. Or maybe even sent them to Burma, which was mostly the same missions - strafing runs, sometimes engaging IJA bombers and fighters.

[@sid__vicious]

Burma and low level fighting? Bro that's a mountain region,ever heard about the Himalayas?

[@tedarcher9120]

​@@sid__viciousthat's Himalayas, not Burma. Burma is very low and tropical

[@tedarcher9120]

Probably because of some beurocratic nonsense. P-39s would have been invaluable against Rommel in Africa, they outclassed everything Germans and Italians had there and had much better range than Hurricanes and Spitfires

[@dformell]

The P-51 Mustang originally had an Allison engine with a top speed of 390 mph, after the Mustang was mated with a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine it's top was 440 mph. It would be interesting to mate a Rolls-Rolls-Royce engine to an Aircobra.

[@planecheck5998]

Congratulations IHYLS for the perfect presentation of your airplanes with regard to the global landscape and considerations of their era.

[@ThePlecoPal]

Airplanes are cool

[@classicforreal]

As long as you learned something.

[@alexM1a]

They sure are

[@rolanddutton]

I think it depends a lot on the altitude and power settings.

[@YankeeCommie]

No diggity!

[@robbiealixsantos]

Hell yeah

[@choppergirl]

My grandfather went joyriding in a sketchy one not fit for combat near Charters Towers in Australia and when the engine gave up the goat, he bailed out in a parachute. Somewhere in the outback tiny little P39 parts are still scattered where it cratered in. Got pictures of him in pilot seat and of his parachute card on his website... Blue2 P38 P39 P47 pilot.

[@IRNHYD]

The P-39 was a fairly dangerous aircraft to try and bail out of. It’s overhead hard (non-retractable) canopy prevented the typical US suggested method of bail out, rolling the aircraft onto its back and simply unhooking the restraints… and the car-door cockpit access made an emergency exit of the aircraft problematic at best. He’s fortunate to have made it out.

[@choppergirl]

@@IRNHYD Check out the Membership of the Silk Club parachute card he got for it advocating the wider adoption of parachutes on my website along with a scan of his pilots license. Even in WW2 the governments were still not entirely keen or sold on pilots bailing out of airplanes, therefore the card.

[@daszieher]

From time flying gliders I remember a former navigator on a Ju 88, who told me about being attacked by a P-39 over France. The fighter broke off after a single pass, probably because he had hit the Ju and thought he had downed it. Needless to say, the aircraft was damaged but still in flying condition and made it back to base. However, the pukot had been hit, his parachute damaged, so the crew opted to nurse the stricken craft home. The navigator flew the aircraft bent over the pilot, as they couldnt get him out of his seat.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

NACA wind tunnel tests showed that the scoops for the Turbo added drag so they it off. Kelsey was busy in Europe - and said that he regretted not being there to save the 39 from this bastardization. One thing about the Russians - is they didn't like wing guns. They wanted all the guns in the fuselage. With the 39's main armament in the nose - they took the guns out of the wings and that aided with it's roll rate. The Russians also loved it's radio. One thing there - is that they did NOT use that 37mm as an anti-tank weapon. They didn't have armor piercing ammunition for it - so - it was only used against aircraft. .

[@GTfour01]

Very well narrated and truely interesting. A forgotten gem, this design. Now I must go and build a fine model of it. 👍🏻

[@OgdenTunkRR]

Even though the aircraft may have not been that good it’s one of my favorite American aircraft of the second world war I even prefer this to the Mustang

[@Ob1sdarkside]

I always learn something when I watch a vid from this channel

[@neilelsewhere9473]

I recall reading of a saying that was supposedly common in the Russian Air Forces during WW2: Y: P39 is good aircraft but not suitable for top fighter aces. D: Why is that? Y: Top fighter ace has balls too big - get tangled in prop-shaft. I don't really care if it is true. Good dit!

[@454cassul9]

@@neilelsewhere9473 I'm pretty sure they've said something like that, but I'm also shure that they've said this with love to the aircraft. Actually the Soviet top-scoring ace Pokryshkin was flying P-39, and even late in the war has refused to change the Airacobra for some new Soviet fighter (cant remember La-7 or Yak).

[@carloshenriquezimmer7543]

@@454cassul9 I read that because the cockpit had doors, instead of the tipical sliding canopy of the era, the P39 was much more confortable to fly in the cold of the soviet winters. Instead of a gush of freezing cold air into the pilot's face trough the canopy gap, the doors sealed as well as car doors, keeping the cold air outside.

[@PeterNebelung]

Hah Hah. I can actually imagine one Soviet mechanic saying that to another. Quietly of course.

[@454cassul9]

@@carloshenriquezimmer7543 yeah, comfortable to fly with its car doors, but in the case of emergency, when the pilot was trying to leave the plane, usually the horizontal surfaces inevitably hit him in the process.

[@ivannovorolnik5054]

@neilelsewhere9473 I read Pokryskin's war memoirs (quite an interesting read btw) - he really liked Airacobra. mainly ergonomics, rich cabin equipment, but also performance, nowhere does it appear that his machine in the air is less agile or powerfull than the opponents' machines. with droptanks he used it for long range missions over the Black see in "almost night" conditions. he also liked strong weapons (he had the trigger of the weapon modified to suit him better). also mentions the bad reputation of the cobra regarding those who leave it in the air (regular leg injuries from hitting the tail surface)

[@roymenik3801]

аэрокобра отлично проявила на восточном фронте. на этих самолетах летали гвардейские полки из отборных летчиков. знаменитый ас ссср покрышкин летал на кобре. ввс ркка снимали пулеметы и оставляли мощную пушку. также эксплуатировался за пределами заводских допусков из за чего, двигатель элисон быстро выходил из строя. но это было неважно, так как жизнь пилота и самолета была коротка. аэрокобры эффективны были при ударах сверху на большой скорости. вертикальный маневр. заранее уходили на высоту, пикировали и наносили удар пушкой. и тут же уходили. конечно, основную нагрузку войны тащили як-1, як-7. но и аэрокобры внесли вклад в победу. я сам живу в северном городе сибири, где во время войны была перегоночная трасса из америки в россию. несколько кобр разбились у нас в горах.

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

13:09 my understanding of Aircorbra not getting the turbocharger in production aircraft was that there was a shortage due to Lockheed and the the P-38. The Army Aircorp giving priority to for the turbos to Lockheed.

[@ikekelly3157]

This is true and all GE Turbo-supers were earmarked for P-38, P-47, B-17 and B-24 production.

[@FreiherrDinkelacker]

This is a great review of this classic plane!

[@thestarlightalchemist7333]

I happen to live in the greater Edmonton area, and the old Blatchford Field airport is an area I've been in and around many times. During the war, it was a very common and iconic sight to see P-39s and other lend-lease equipment flying in and out of the airport while on their northwesterly journey to the USSR. As a result of both that and east-west traffic, Blatchford Field was the busiest Canadian airport in the entire war. The Alberta Aviation Museum currently has two P-39s under restoration, one of which they'll keep, and both of which will be restored in USSR markings and colors in the same spec as factory lend-lease planes (though iirc these ones came from South America)

[@tomhart837]

Was on the ALSIB (Alaska-Siberia ) route. Was roughly Buffalo-Indiana- North Dakota-Canada-Alaska-Siberia

[@MattnessLP]

The Airacobra is such a beast in War Thunder. It's fast, pretty durable for a fighter and its cannon just shreds through any kinds of planes and even ground vehicles like they made of paper

[@dweiss7657]

Just don’t get into a rate fight lol

[@Cuccos19]

And I was such an ace in IL-2 Sturmovik 1946. I was so successful even Eric Hartmann would blush seeing my kill tally.

[@Tacticaviator7]

@@dweiss7657 What ? both the 39 and 63 have really good turn performance to the point where they can outturn spitfires in certain scenarios, just don't turn with japanese and biplanes.

[@PabloSniper]

Your videos are very good and very detailed. Would it be possible for you to make one of the P-43 Lancer?

[@petesheppard1709]

IIRC, several Soviet P-63s also got shot up in Far Eastern Russia when Americans accidentally strafed a Soviet airfield in the early Korean War.

[@hughdanaher2758]

“Accidentally”

[@petesheppard1709]

@@hughdanaher2758 What they said...

[@mikearmstrong8483]

Accidentally, meaning that whether the pilots knew it was in Soviet territory rather than North Korean is debatable. It certainly would not have been ordered, authorized, or condoned by the US government, which had every reason to avoid open conflict with the Soviet Union at that point. The pilots would have known that strafing a Soviet airfield intentionally would get them in serious trouble and either did so without intent or relied on keeping their stories straight. Not everything is always a conspiracy; sometimes shit just happens.

[@petesheppard1709]

@@mikearmstrong8483 I agree it was most likely an honest accident. There is a short strip where N. Korea and the USSR are in direct contact, and the N. Koreans had some combat aircraft at that early stage of the war. Given the difficulty of determining exactly where the border was, it's understandable that pilots given the mission to hit enemy airfields could have gone after a Soviet airfield close to the border, thinking it was a N. Korean strip.

[@Avtomat4774]

​@@hughdanaher2758 no way they'd do it on purpose bro. Open warfare with the USSR was literally dead last on Uncle Sam's to do list.

[@alancaron984]

The canon was a John Browning design. The same inventor of the Colt 1911, the B.A.R., the 30 & 50 cal machine guns.

[@keithmcwilliams7424]

Same for p40 war hawk Australians used them with great success in pacific war renamed kitty hawk in autralian use.😊

[@martinsczepan3387]

Thanks for your interesting video. One addition about the use of the P-39 by the USAAF in a rather forgotten theater of operations: The type was also used in the Panama canal zone for patrol duties. For more information see Dan Hagedorns book "Panama canal defenders", vol. 1

[@douglasskaalrud6865]

Just northwest of Minneapolis lies Crystal airport, which had some fine WWII aircraft. In my 1960’s youth I saw P-51 racers, a C-47, three DC-3’s and some summers one of the Good Year airships would stay for a week giving rides as fundraisers. The locals mostly owned Cessnas and Beech Bonanzas and the flight school had the little Pipers. It was all good and then along came the P-39 Bell Airacobra to spoil it all. The thing was a heap and we listened to that clunker for weeks on end as the owner tried and tried and tried to get the thing into some kind of racing form. I think they ended up using the miserable machine for crop dusting

[@kevinferrin5695]

Thank you for giving me much more respect for this airplane.

[@nebufabu]

The story of neon tetras and how they got to be one of the more common aquarium fish is an interesting tale of exploration, science and, I think, a bit of industrial espionage...

[@MakerBoyOldBoy]

The P-39 was loved as a gun platform and got its ease of handling by its pilots. The initial design was intentionally hamstring by the USAAC by denying it superchargetd limiting it to 15000 feet and below in a world of upper atmosphere fighter and bomber aircraft. One of hundreds tactical blunders made by the US military in that era. Fortune intervened as the Soviet air war was tactical and low level in which the P-39 held its own in combat and ground pounding. Many Soviet pilots became aces in the P-39

[@IRNHYD]

The lack of a turbosupercharger on the P-39 was the result of Bell’s own engineering management. Bell was asked to significantly reduce drag on the P-39, in order to gain speed. Many mods were performed, but the biggest issue from a drag standpoint was the big scoop on the side of the fuselage for the turbo. The airframe was completely maxed out on space, internally and attempts to smooth it were stymied by that scoop. Bell was hurting for cash and finally it was suggested by the engineering manager at Bell to drop the supercharger. Bell was hurting for cash at the time and needed an inflow badly. In order to get aircraft into the field more quickly, the Army Air Corps agreed. The Soviets loved the P-39. They made it standard to immediately remove the 4 wing mounted guns and roughly 700 lbs of armor from the.belly of the aircraft. The result was a significant improvement in roll, top speed and maneuverability. They also removed the separate triggers for the cannon (thumb) and wired guns and cannon together in one (index) trigger. The huge , momentary burst of fire from this arrangement proved deadly to German aircraft., The P-39 was largely untouchable below 15,000 feet. It was dangerous to bail out of because of the car door style entry. The P-39 had a tendency to go into a non-recoverable flat spin if tight, high speed turns were attempted wheh the ammo for the guns were empty, thus, shifting the center of gravity to the rear of the aircraft. That last trait was made known, by the Soviets, to Bell and it was corrected by ballasting the nose. But the fact remains that the highest kill counts of individual pilots, who flew American built fighters during WWII, were all scored by Soviet pilots operating the p-39. As long as the P-39 was held to below 15 thousand feet, and airspeed kept above 300mp, the Airacobra was more than a match for the A6M2 Zero and the Bf109.

[@MakerBoyOldBoy]

@@IRNHYD My extreme thanks to your extraordinary analysis. I am not a P-39 nerd as much as I want to be. As a kid the P-39 and the Me-262 were by far the most graceful models. Years later the Constellation airliner joined the group. Your information cleared up all of the troubling issues about that aircraft and further confirmed by belief that it deserves to be included as one of the most capable airframes of its era. You are most certainly learned. I worked on J-47 engined airframes. I suspect that you also have hands on experiences.

[@nortoncomando3728]

The Bell fighter also proved easy to maintain under primitive conditions such as forward air strips in the Solomons Island early in the Pacific war.

[@TrentFalkenrath]

I love the way these planes look. It's shape leads into the way they look during the early years of jet fighters. Like, take off the prop, sweep back the wings, and it suddenly resembles an F-86.

[@mpetersen6]

Bell took a P-63 and modified with swept wings for testing by the USN.

[@xevious4142]

You mention the P-39 as an "attacker" on the Soviet Front but I think it's important to note that they primarily used it as an air superiority aircraft in support of ground forces. The attacker comes from a mistranslation of Soviet documents on the part of western historians. It was not used in roles like the Il-2 for things like attacking armored targets despite this myth persisting among western sources.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

Well, hot diggity frog balls! Apparently I'm not the only person in the western world that knows that. You know how often I have had to explain that it was not used as a tank buster?

[@IRNHYD]

This is correct. The Soviets removed the wing guns, 700lbs of armor from the aircraft and then rewired the remaining weapons into one trigger (the P-39 had two as built). The resulting improvement in both speed and roll rate made the P-39 nearly untouchable at altitudes below 15000 feet. It was more than a match for the 109 at that altitude. The highest scoring allied aces of WWII, who operated US built fighters… were all Soviet airmen who flew the P-39.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

@xevious4142 Correct indeed. The mistranslation is the source of the myth. Also, tests later in the war confirmed what the Soviets had probably already discovered; a single large caliber slow firing gun with limited ammo is ineffective against armored targets. The best test pilots shooting at static targets achieved only a 7% hit rate. With 15 rounds of 37mm, that means an average pilot shooting at a tank that might be moving would be lucky to get a single hit after expending all his ammo, and that might not penetrate, so going after tanks was a wasted sortie. The Hurricane and Ju-87 tank busters with 2 large guns each made it barely viable. As a side note, if you research the firing trials for the A-10/GAU-8, you'll find that the best aircraft/heavy gun combination yet created was also not very effective against MBTs.

[@xevious4142]

@@mikearmstrong8483 right, the A-10 is more of a missile truck now than a gunship.

[@maverickf1426]

probably the best aircraft in warthunder at its tier. all of them

[@jussi8111]

only problem i have with it is that 37mm... so many sparks with the HE belt

[@haley746]

I was so intrigued by the pinball plane I read up on it. The Smithsonian mag website has a great article that explained it all. The plane was used for bomber gunner training and the 37mm was replaced by a light. There are also counters that counted how many hits were recorded each pass. There’s also a book called operation pinball by Ivan Hickman, who flew one of these

[@RemusKingOfRome]

One of the main reasons the engine was at the front is because if the aircraft stalls, the heavy nose would take control and dive the aircraft nose first, easy for the pilot to take back control. A safety reason. You didn't mention the Flat spin problem of the mid-mounted engine design ?

[@juliusdream2683]

My bad for 3 comments but I liked the fact you brought up the neon tetra I had a bunch in my tropical fish aquarium. The bell company actually made a plane on par with the P51D with the P63 king cobra but I’m sure you will bring that up later in the video. Ok I’m done keep up the good work 👍🏼🇺🇸.

[@StevieMoore]

I didn't know you were a fish keeper! I love Neon Tetra, and I love the P-63. I've always thought it was a badass looking aircraft if not as badass on the battlefield as our other designs.

[@RaderizDorret]

From what Greg of Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles managed to dig up, the turbocharger proved to be rather finicky and expensive so it was decided to use a single stage, single speed mechanical supercharger again because of the perceived lack of need for very good high altitude performance.

[@waynec3563]

The same turbo was used on the YP-37s, where it was notoriously unreliable.

[@Lork66]

Also, you have to consider that most Soviet-made planes were designed for low to mid-altitudes. Particularly because of the harsh weather of the autumn and winter seasons. Except the MIG-3 which was designed as a high altitude interceptor but didn't really made the cut for most engagements from Barbarossa onwards, all Yakovlev and Ilyushin planes were specifically designed for mid altitude performance at best. The P-39 and subsequently, the P-63 did fit perfectly for those combat conditions.

[@LyricalTokarev33]

Damn you are the sole person in the internet who actually understands the soviet low altitude doctrine and its direct connection to the weather.

[@spectreandromedus8661]

As much as I love the '39 on paper. In practice, she's inherently flawed. Run outta ammo in that nose cannon and watch your tail try and pass you up. All the weight is astern, which makes for a helluva tailspin problem.

[@greenthing99100]

I love this channel! The stuff on planes is well researched and interesting. And you are right about Neon Tetras and their cousins Cardinal Tetras and Black Neons - in a well planted tank they look great.

[@patrickshaw8595]

Russians LOVE high-caliber guns. They swooned over the 37 Autocannon and it was love at first sight. Their attitude was that if you had to go attack the enemy it was best to not half-ass it but instead go in for the kill.

[@randomvariable1836]

Yet another excellent video

[@waynec3563]

It is unlikley that the XP-39 ever achieved the performance figures mentioned. The XP-39 had one or two test flights and was quickly taken to the NACA wind tunnel to rectify its aerodynamic issues.

[@dweiss7657]

First off I wanted to say I love the channel and your work. Second I was a bit disappointed in this one. You left out the P-400 and the p-39 service in the pacific. And that chuck yeager loved it and claimed it was his favorite plane. The p-39 also was a great racing plane after the war. Again love your work!

[@SoloRenegade]

and US pilots admitted they were unfairly harsh on teh P-39. It scored a positive kill ratio against japanese aircraft. And the US continued to use the P-39 into the Philippines campaign into 1944. It also served in the south pacific, Alaska, North Africa, Italy, and with the Soviets. It was good enough the US kept them in frontline service on numerous fronts for many years.

[@madigorfkgoogle9349]

It was not really mentioned in the video, but there were two main reasons Soviets loved the P-39. First it was a fighter plane Soviets lacked in first place, in fact up until the end of Kursk battle Soviets didnt produce many fighter planes and focused on IL-2 variants. So any fighter plane was great. Second, it was very good armed, till P-39 Soviets mostly used fighters equipped with 2x7.62mm MG and 1x 12.7mm MG on most Soviet made fighters. It was the P-39 that showed them that a cannon is a good asset. Third, the sky over Stalingrad was won mostly due to P-39, at the begin of battle of Stalingrad, Luftwaffe had total air superiority, P-39 changed this since it was a great bomber slayer.

[@Triple_J.1]

The only thing "wrong" with the P-39 was the Turbocharger it was intended to have, was omitted by the USAAF to allocate them for the bombers, and P-38s. And P-47s... They simply demanded this feature of all aircraft and this caused them to be unable to mass produce all of these aircraft. Nickel alloy (known as Inconel) was a required material, and there was not enough to go around. Allison (makers of the V-1610) developed a two stage, 2 and even 3-stage supercharger similar to, perhaps superior to, the Merlins. The USAAF vetoed it and wanted nothing to do with simple, outdated technology. This is a logical choice if you have unlimited turbochargers. But they did not.

[@inkycat7167]

I love the Cobra, i really do, but that cockpit and the lack of a super charger really makes loving it harder

[@edwardpate6128]

They had a supercharger, all Allisons did, just a single stage single speed one.

[@barryervin8536]

Once again, the "Didn't have a supercharger" myth.

[@inkycat7167]

@@barryervin8536 I meant Supercharger with stages, my brain skipped that for some reason mb

[@kowpattidookshow732]

I agree with you regarding the Neon Tetra. It may be "basic" as far as fish are concerned, but they are hardy lil guys. They do add that pop of color!

[@Mr.T-SI]

Soviets often removed wing mounted guns and parts of the radio equipment to lighten the aircraft to make it preform better, Fins did similar with thier Brewsters

[@pliashmuldba]

P39 not the big plane, but for its time a damn fine looking plane.

[@maxo.9928]

Always liked the cockpit on the 'cobras, that rounded shape and the overall visibility it offers (not *great* in any direction, but lots of glass nonetheless)

[@IRNHYD]

The only problem was the fixed overhead canopy and car-door type egress to the cockpit. US bail out doctrine found tgd safest bail out method for fighter pilots was to unbuckle your harness, throw back the canopy and roll the stricken plane onto its back. You couldn’t do this in a P-39. Making an emergency exit from the P-39 was problematic at best.

[@srogamina]

My fav plane since 6 yo. Even made a model of white, flying soviet-vatican painting, with 2137 number on the tale

[@lawrencemeadonia7500]

I believe I heard the real reason the turbocharger was removed was due to Bell and the Army intending the aircraft to be sold to foreign countries. There was a law or some sort early in the war that prevented American companies from selling aircraft with turbochargers due to their immense potential in boosting performance. A similar situation happened with the early p38s that were given to Britain and had their turbos removed for this reason. This drastically reduced overall performance of the p38 which is why the Brits never asked for more. Bell clearly had export in mind and did quite well by filling a niche in a plane that actually performed well at low altitude in both speed, maneuverability, and versatility.

[@IRNHYD]

No. The Army Air Corps instructed Bell to reduce drag in order to allow the aircraft to meet its design parameters for speed. They found that with the turbo the airframe was maxed out on space and that the big side scoop for the turbo could not be removed without overheating. So Bell approached the Air Corps about simply removing the turbo. Bell needed a cash influx and the Army needed fighters in the field ASAP, so they agreed. The removal of the turbo, its scoop and other drag inducing features enabled the P-39 to meet its basic specifications.

[@lawrencemeadonia7500]

@IRNHYD Maybe, or maybe not, no one really knows anymore. The turbo was hardly the only drag inducing feature and instead of eliminating those, they corrected them. The same was not done to the turbo even though initially, the plane was intended to be a high altitude performer. The designers absolutely knew that removing the turbo would severely hinder performace overall and this was a primary reason the plane never became a prominent US fighter anywhere outside the Philippines. This was never corrected even when they had a 2nd chance with the P63 with all of the additional knowledge by that time. You are right about Bell being strapped for cash, and export sales was a very lucrative business and arguably more promising considering the anti-war sentiment going on in the US during the early days of the war until Pearl Harbor. Keeping a turbo would have made things difficult to export which is what happened to other designs like the p38 when they were sold off without their turbos and failed miserably. Regardless of why they did so, it seemed like they made the right move.

[@ikekelly3157]

The reason Britain’s Lightnings (P-322) had no turbo-supers was because THEY requested them removed, not the USAAC. Britain felt the added complexity wasn’t necessary as they championed two stage supers for their Merlins. Lockheed protested such request would handicap performance drastically (and the disagreement would impact Lockheed/Britain purchases for decades).The US War Production Board also wanted all GE Turbo-supers to be routed to US aircraft, so they backed Britains’s request. The real killer of the British Lightning’s performance was Britain’s decision to NOT have handed Allison engines, this upset the torque balance design feature of the P-38 and reduced maneuverability at all altitudes.

[@Hikaru109Ichijyo]

Ty for this, I like this plane, it had good lines. Also the Soviets receiving it, they would strip most of the armor and wing machine guns, keeping only the nose cannon and nose mguns and performance was better than american ones, allowing good Soviet pilots to tangle with late war BF/ME 109 an FW190s. I remember in elementry school I thought the P-39/63 and P-38 were the coolest . . . the library had a Rene J. Francillon book about French fighting communists in Vietnam (it was territory, pre US entry) , and P-39 / P-63s (along with usual US WW 2 and post WW 2 planes) were used heavily

[@RalfJosefFries]

it is a fact that when a new aircraft get´s a bad reputation during the it´s first day´s in service - there are only few chances for that aircraft (or it´s producer) to change this prejudices, no matter how good it´s performance is. Astonishing is that this was a fact in ALL airforces worldwide - some planes had problems during their testflights or during introduction - got a bad reputation - and had after that never a chance no matter what the producers changed or improved or how good the aircraft performed in service.

[@jhoncho4x4]

An aircraft engine that is not boosted by a turbo has a much better chance of surviving lower octane soviet fuel and helps prevent detonation from ruining the engines. Lend-Lease equipment engines were lower compression gas or converted to diesel to fit their doctrine. US military rarely used lend lease equipment; different doctrine and higher octane gas available. A shipment of BAM100 from the US for the battle of Britain allowed more supercharging and performance than available for the battle of France for british fighters. The increase in supercharging between the battles is well documented.

[@Lonkka665]

26:58 "...Finland really like it (Brewster) and had considerable success with it." That is to put it lightly! Because of Finns, Brewster is the plane with the highest kill ratio ever 32 to 1. (Bf 109 21:1, Hellcat 19:1, Warhawk 18:1, Spitfire 13:1, Corsair 11:1, Mustang 11:1, Lightning 7:1)

[@luciusartorius3437]

according to finnish fantasy claims*

[@Lonkka665]

@@luciusartorius3437 Probably the most strict and meticulously enforced kill claim system, but whatever...

[@CPDheadstomp]

Lend/Lease Act should be an example of the government doing what it wants to do, even though citizens didn’t want it. You know “democracy”.

[@AB-mw8oz]

Considering only 22% of Americans were unequivocally against lend lease in February 1941. That seems like democracy at work. 54% supported it, further 15% supported it as long as the US did not get dragged into the war, thats 69% A huge majority. Democracy is democracy whether you like the results or not

[@edwardpate6128]

The P-63 used a 2nd detached supercharger stage on the Allison which gave it the 2 stage supercharger it needed for higher altitude performance.

[@TREIDAS1]

Thanks for photos and informative video. P39 was premium fighter for Soviets in terms quality, perfomance and radio. I had spoke with Soviet veteran WW2 pilot in 1996 and he mentioned that even no radio was installed on Soviet planes. All alluminium plane was a dream. Lots of fabric was on wings and fuselage. Quality of soviet fighters was very poor. America helped a lot, even high octan aviation fuel was supplied by US. Modern days RuZzia do not want to admit that US and Brits helped a lot with guns and machinery to defeat Hitler, propoganda says that all ruZzian staff is the best...

[@mickvonbornemann3824]

In fact the 2 Bell fighters were in many way amongst the most advanced fighters the US made during the war.

[@MisterOcclusion]

Flying a pinball must have been some sort of punishment

[@TheJaymon1962]

Excellent

[@kwd3109]

The Bell P-39 was never "TRASH".

[@arrowlock]

Chuck Yeager absolutely loved flying that plane.

[@Fiasco3]

Because the Russian's where flying low altitude, and wanted tank busters. The Aircobra p-39 could do that with it's 37mm cannon. It also had the engine mounted middle so that would make it harder to get at/ get hit. It was still an okay fighter so it could defend itself after a strike.

[@kenandbarbie-b6c]

The removal of the supercharger was a WTF moment.

[@saker6121]

They removed the turbo supercharger (turbo). The p39 still had a supercharger. (As far as I know all WW2 era fighters did)

[@TJTruth]

only problem with P-39 and P-40 is they didn't have two stage supercharger. They could hang with most all WWII planes down low... with exception of spitfire, an a Zero, and even then it comes down to Pilot experience. Russians did good both of those lend lease planes because most of the combat in the east was below ten thousand feet. They also did pretty good in Africa.

[@charlesdorval394]

I agree, they're pretty cool ;)

[@WanderfalkeAT]

Treasure :) A Focke Wulf Pilot, nearly 92 years old told me about the P-39 quite differently. The 2 he met in 1943: One stalled his plane and flipflopped in the ground after getting a flyby by a Focke Wulf (he didn't even fire because he was too fast). The other made a strafing run and as he tryed to pull up the plane was pointing nose up but he still hit the ground spiraling after stalling. The Yak 3 and 9 and especcially the La-5 were classes better. After 1943 no fighter pilot wanted to fly the P-39. The P-39 was then mostly used for attack roles and strafing. But they liked it much more than the Spitfire at low altitude, that's for sure. Due to it's 37mm Gun it was seen as a faster and smaller IL-2 to hunt Tanks with. The Yak-9T did not fair so well with it's big gun. The P-63 from what I know was better but in fewer numbers and had lots of engine problems when it was cold.

[@brettread6373]

Brit here your right about the Spitfires not really suited to the Eastern front. And we were sending mostly mark 5 which were pretty much worn out and outclassed by the latest German fighters

[@tedarcher9120]

The most elite Russian squadrons got the p-39s tho. At low altitude p-39 could easily outrun, outclimb or outturn a fw-190 without mw-50, which was most of them, if flown by an experienced pilot. Seems he met a completely new squadron of p-39, otherwise he would be dead an not telling anything

[@WanderfalkeAT]

@@tedarcher9120 The FW-190 was never a Turnfighter. At lower speeds the P-39 was able to outturn a FW-190 quite well. However Speed and Roll Rate was the FW-190's advantage, combined with a punch that could obliterate most fighters with just a burst. And the 190 could easily outrun a P-39 even low. Different story with the late war P-63 thoug. Then you needed a Dora or something like a TA-152 or Anton 9. The 109 however outturned and outclimbed a P-39 while closely matching it's speed!

[@tedarcher9120]

@@WanderfalkeAT only above 3000m. Below p-39 outran and outclimbed any German fighter without mw-50. Especially with an overboosted to 1780-1800hp engine, which most were if high octane fuel was available. P-63 had bigger wings and was much heavier with the same power down low, so it was not used by the soviets

[@WanderfalkeAT]

@@tedarcher9120 Yeah MW-50 gave the Fockes the edge to slowly climb outside of the P-39's best envelope. As soon as the 2nd stage was kicked in automatically at 2900m the Cobra better turned back! Fockes who tried to turn with P-39 at low altitude had certainly a problem, even with MW50. The Messer not so much! My only knowledge of the P-63 comes from the IL-2 Simulators where the P-63 was better in anything except roll rate. I was able to fight it using late 109's and Ta-152 but a standard Focke almost had no chance other than in a Headon Engagement. And that even on the deck.

[@Idahoguy10157]

Back in the 1990’s the Air Force Association magazine a man who flew theP-63 pinball mission out of some airfield on the lower Colorado river. After an overseas assignment. Made me wonder if he was unlucky? Or someone in charge hated!

[@yoloactual6975]

The P-39 and the P-63 were both praised for their generally good performance in the pacific theater. Idk where you got the idea they were trash.

[@kennedysingh3916]

I see this same history repeating itself in the automotive world.