P-39 Airacobra - One Of The Rarest WW2 Warbirds

For over 20 years, Pioneer Aero Limited, based at Armore Aerodrome in Auckland, have been one of New Zealand's (and the world's), foremost restorers of Second World War aircraft.
In this video Paul McSweeny, the director of the company, discusses the Bell P-39 Airacobra restoration that Pioneer is on the verge of completing for Jerry Yagen's Warbirds Aviation Museum in Virginia Beach USA . Once this aircraft flies it will be the third airworthy P-39 in the world, making it one of the more rare WW2 fighter aircraft types.
Paul also discusses some of the other restoration projects the company has underway at the moment, including another couple of P-40 Warhawks/Kittyhawks. These projects mean that Pioneer Aero will soon be responsible for restoring almost a third of the worlds population of 32-33 airworthy P-40 fighters -- a remarkable feat in itself.
In addition to the P-40's, Paul briefly talks about the de Havilland DH.103 Sea Hornet and Vought Kingfisher projects that the company is also soon to embark on.
See Pioneer's web site for more info: www.pioneeraero.co.nz
----
** Historical Machines TV - Free 7-Day Trial ** : See much more video material like this, and more, on our premier video-on-demand streaming service (from US$2.99 per month) at www.historicalm....
----
www.aviationfil...
Copyright © 2019 Historical Aviation Film Unit
This video material may not be reproduced in any form (except on other websites as an unedited embedded video which links back to to this KZbin master), without the written permission of the Historical Aviation Film Unit.
This particularly applies to television broadcasters and other media outlets.
#aviationfilm #p39 #ww2warbirds #HAFU #airacobra

[@bobkent2334]

My father flew the P-39 on Guadalcanal and other islands during the Solomon's Campaign. Some pilots called it a "flying coffin," but my father loved the P-39. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross after shooting down 3 Japanese planes and assisting in downing a fourth. My father also enjoyed his R&R time in New Zealand. I still have his New Zealand driver's license, issued when he was in Auckland.

[@briskthehusky9545]

Thank you for his service sir, must've been hell for him.

[@hlcepeda]

My understanding is that in WWII the US gifted almost 5000 of these to the Soviet Air Force (who also loved it) and (source: wiki) "enabled individual Soviet pilots to collect the highest number of kills attributed to any U.S. fighter type flown by any pilot in any conflict."

[@Aroraa]

The flying coffins were the gliders not p 39s

[@Streamer687]

@@hlcepeda Yes its true, but the reason I read...was "Pilot Faith" in the Plane...as the Driveshaft from the Engine going to the Prop goes right by the Pilot, (so Ive read) and the Pilots had a bad time getting used to it after flight training...

[@hlcepeda]

@@Streamer687 Understood. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that more than a few Russian pilots had their concerns with the drive shaft shunted aside due to the P-39's ruggedness, reliability, and -- given the incredibly high Russian casualty rate (highest in the war) -- by a driving hatred of the Germans... and that punctuated by having that potent 37mm nose cannon to play with.

[@phlodel]

The trait of the P-39 that scared pilots was the tumble. Many said it was unrecoverable. Bob Hoover toured the combat arenas where the P-39 was deployed. He demonstrated tumble recovery and taught pilots how. He said "If you get into trouble, put it into a tumble. No aircraft in the world can follow that."

[@thatguy7085]

I saw the video of the tumble in England where a pilot couldn’t recover.

[@raymondeaton5692]

Bob Hoover wasn't the average military pilot.

[@surf9730]

Покрышкин на таком самолёте успешно бил фашистов в великой отечественной войне

[@Mrfrenchdeux]

Yea, and he was Bob Hoover.

[@phlodel]

@@thatguy7085 Maybe he could have recovered if Bob Hoover had taught him how.

[@Archer89201]

Allied pilots- this sucks no high altitude performance Soviet pilots- noobs you fly this close to ground

[@DevSolar]

German pilots- We have a word in this as well, you know. You better fly high over the Reich...

[@baginatora]

In nazi Germany planes fly high and away from AA...bUt In sOviEt RuSsiA, AA better run away from planes!!1!

[@bennytsai4065]

@@baginatora oh yes specially those Stukas & Sturmonik... lol

[@keptinkaos6384]

soviets used the people as trash the germans shot so many out of the sky they lost count they used attrition.

[@GroundHOG-2010]

@@keptinkaos6384 Not really, they equipped their air force with some of the best aircraft of the war, they were put in a situation where they needed ground support over bombing so of course everything would happen at low altitude than at high. And having a lot of people in well designed and well performing aircraft is just the easiest way of getting air superiority. It's likely that the real killing period for the germans was early on, when aircraft such as the Yak-1, Yak-9 and LA-5 were not in high use or yet created, and the airforce was still reliant on older designs such as the I-153, I-16, etc.

[@lescobrandon3047]

We sent a lot of P-39s to the Soviet Union and they loved it. To me, it was one of the most beautiful planes ever made.

[@GruesomesGarage]

Stalin actually pressured the U.S to continue production when they decided to stop making them. It was a good fighter for the conditions on the eastern front.

[@davidgreen5099]

I completely agree. Absolutely gorgeous.

[@simulatedpilot3441]

@@GruesomesGarage balance nice turn rate big gun fine under 20k

[@Burboss]

Alexander Pokryshkin, over 50 confirmed kills in P-39 between 1943-44.

[@magnificentfailure2390]

The folks at Messerschmidt thought so, too. :)

[@ramimariewilson4672]

"Ace in a day" and famed Test Pilot, The first man to break the sound barrier and live, General Chuck Yeager loved the P-39;)

[@58biggles]

So did Bob Hoover

[@saucejohnson9862]

A lot of American pilots loved it, people forget it served in Africa. One thing they all hated though, was how hard it was to bale out of it if hit. You had to open a car door against massive air pressure = impossible.

[@drizler]

Xor rd Such a simple fix too. Yank out door hinge pins like they use in aerobatic planes. You’d play hell getting out of that door at speed otherwise. You could barely push the door 1/4;open at 90 in my Cessna and it steered it like a rudder too. I knew a skydiver type who had an issue and jumped out of his cessna 150. Almost got killed getting stuck in the door and headset leads😞. Getting fully out of that P39 would be hell in an out of control situation with those solid hinged doors.

[@jackmehoffer7819]

Xor rd I did not close my door when I was flying a MD500 one day and had to go into a hover to get the dam thing shut. Can’t imagine at over 200 trying that.

[@Swimfinz]

RamiMarie... Thank you for bringing up this salient fact about our shared history.

[@skswig1]

the idea that the P 39 was hated by Allied pilots is a myth started by the WW11 aviation magazines in the 70's. Chuck Yeager loved it. Most did when it was used in role it intended. It was never meant as an high altitude air superiority fighter.

[@grumblesa10]

Well it WAS meant as a bomber interceptor, hence the cannon; but not intended to go up against fighters. But it was a useful fighter at lower altitudes. It IS a myth that the Soviets used it in what is now called CAS. It was a low-med altitude air superiority fighter. The P63 fixed all the issues with powerplant and was an impressive aircraft. However the USAAF was concentrating on P47/P51 production and all were exported to China and the USSR.

[@Activated_Complex]

Well, it was initially meant as one. I was ready to say it should have been shelved when the superchargers were not forthcoming. That was before I looked it up and discovered that the P-39 is credited with more aerial victories against Axis aircraft than any other single type produced by the US during WWII. If true, this plane should be celebrated as a triumph.

[@nhatpham9933]

@@Activated_Complex It was true but on the individual scale only. Individually, Soviet pilot flying P-39 scored higher than any other U.S aces. For example, Alexander Pokryshin credited with 48 kills on the P-39 while Richard Bong had 40 with his P-38. For the overall highest score, I think it's the P-51.

[@Activated_Complex]

Nhật Phạm I was going off the Wikipedia page. I didn’t dig into the cited primary sources. But I have an easy time believing it was the highest-scoring type produced by the US, for the following reasons: A) It was used all over the place, due to Lend-Lease. B) Other early-war fighter types produced in America were either in comparatively short supply, like the P-38, or were supplanted, like the P-47 and Wildcat, by newer types. Placing an upper limit on their still-substantial contribution to the tally of aerial victories. Though by virtue of being available during the decisive years of the conflict, they may be called even more crucial to securing overall victory than the late-war models. C) The daylight bombing campaign against Germany was initially conducted with unescorted B-17s, due to the limited operational range of fighters operating from their bases in Britain. Somewhat limiting the opportunities for USAAF fighters to cross swords with the Luftwaffe aircraft that had been held back at airfields in Germany for use against the bomber formations. That could easily add up to more advanced US-produced fighters not quite catching up to the P-39’s early lead, as it was operating in hotly-contested skies over the Eastern Front well before the USAAF got into the war in the ETO in force. The Luftwaffe suffered staggering losses in 1942 alone.

[@oakpineranch]

World war 11? thought there were only 2. Oh you mean WWII. damn those Roman numerals get you every time

[@nickbreen287]

That looks 'factory fresh'. Excellent work guys.

[@dannydonuts4219]

Nose mounted cannon,engine behind pilot,A-10 granddaddy?

[@pac1fic055]

Danny Donuts - I’d say the P-47 Thunderbolt is the A-10’s grandpa. The P-39 was not really used for ground attack.

[@JaviRP97]

Pac1fic0 Let's say the A-10 got some mixed genetics

[@martimnunesmartinho6788]

A26 is the a10s grand parent i’d say

[@burninglass]

Great analogy. Why didn't I catch that 30 years ago ?

[@SkinnerBeeMan]

Hate to tell y'all stuka is the a 10 grand daddy.

[@RaduB.]

I don't know what others think but I find the P-39 simply beautiful. And this seems to be a great restoration! Well done and good luck further!

[@ADRAPER1303]

My father served in the RAAF during WW2, he told me once that he saw a yank fly an Airacobra under the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 1944.

[@peterkirgan6850]

So true and the end of ww2 3 mosquito flew under and down the Sydney harbour length

[@jnpowell9077]

Congratulations to Pioneer Aero, fantastic restoration.

[@johnashley-smith4987]

Thanks for this video! Always loved this much-maligned machine in spite of all the negative press it has received. This and the P-40 always get negative press. They were what was on hand and had to be used until the newer,more advanced machines were available and deserve way more respect than they are given in my opinion. Thanks again!

[@williamkrusejr1846]

My father worked at Bell Aircraft in Buffalo NY from 1939 to 1943 making the fuselage of P-39's ,he joined the Navy and served on the Wasp CV-18 till the end of WW-2. He did tell me that Larry Bell would walk around and talk to the workers, and was friendly. Dad passed in 1995 he was 75, he was an Iowa farm boy.

[@seamasrigh2162]

My mom worked there 1942-43 as a QC person. Then she joined the Coast Guard. But 39's have a special place for me.

[@evreet2000]

My favorite Larry Bell quote concerns a reporter asking him if the advent of jet aircraft spelled the end of the helicopter. Larry answered him: “Not at all, because basically, Man wants to fly like a bird, not a bat outta hell!”.

[@R2Rocketeer]

I knew a lot of guys from Iowa who worked in aerospace here in So Cal

[@KevinSmith-dx6xq]

Some of my Iowa family went to Oakland Ca to build aircraft for the war.

[@zmxl1020]

I remember reading about a restored P-39 at the marine park in Buffalo, NY. I believe that one was flown by Lt. William Shomo who was a medal of honor winner.

[@jongirolami4978]

My uncle, Donald L. Wilson flew the P-39 during WWII. He's still going strong.

[@mcfrisko834]

Jon Girolami Tell Donald Thank You for his service!

[@tuomasheikkinen9251]

Awesome!

[@snipe1066]

Tell him thank you for your service from a Navy vet

[@germaxicus6670]

He must be an awesome man! Take care

[@NiSiochainGanSaoirse]

Please thank him for me.

[@cyiabsalon9720]

Your work in restoring these beauties, is historic in of it's self. The true craftsmanship you all perform is evidently apparent in the detail. Thank you for giving a damn.

[@ragingagent5040]

6:07 “the two 50 mil cannons up at the top” I guess this was the “Armageddon” variant.

[@LogieT2K]

Raging Agent i think he .50 cal machine guns because thats what thru usually had on top of the nose

[@sirboomsalot4902]

Logan Taylor *inhales* WHOOSH

[@Agnemons]

That reminds of a talk I had with LAME years ago, Not long after the war they were experimenting with a Harvard trainer and decided to put a couple of canons under the wings (I suspect that this was not officially sanctioned). Anyway they did a flight test and the damn thing nearly stalled. Needless to say, Harvards don't fly with canons.

[@butlerproman]

@@Agnemons Now the Harvards just stick to apocryphas under the wings.

[@werre2]

There's one at Tikkakoski museum in Finland. It's restored from the parts of three shot down russian p-39s.

[@sirboomsalot4902]

Guns N Glory These are rare aircraft, you can’t just buy one

[@bipolatelly9806]

@Guns N Glory "money can't buy you love" "can't buy you love, love. Money can't buy you love" Sex, yes.... "but money can't buy you love"

[@mountainguyed67]

@Guns N Glory I read about the Soviets trying to build one P39 out of thirteen wrecked P39s salvaged from the hills, so they can have one in a museum.

[@アレクサンダーイワノフ]

Nazi Finland :)

[@lyricaltraveller]

The engine placement was due to two different factors. Of course the main one was the 30 mil cannon. But the second was to create a less stable airframe to make it more maneuverable, which the Russians used to their advantage over the BF109 and FW190. Originally the airplane came with a two stage supercharger for high altitude performance. But in 1939 it was thought that the scoop on the side, which was the only place to put it, made the craft less aerodynamic and had a negative effect on the controllability of the airplane. So the super charger was removed, relegating the aircraft to lower altitudes where the Eastern front fight happened compared to the western front. This is why the Russians were able to use the airplane far more effectively than the Americans.

[@cyrilscordia9565]

in fr nord africa ... and you mentionned the supercharger removal or absence

[@perezfinichames]

It wasn't just a second stage super charger. It was a turbo supercharger, which required a lot of space. It's a big reason the engine was in back. All of the Allison 1710 powered fighters with Turbo's had issues of one form or another and none was entirely successful.

[@davidvaughn7752]

Makes sense. Thanks!

[@rwaitt14153]

@@perezfinichames Allisons with turbos were failures? The P-38 disagrees.

[@perezfinichames]

@@rwaitt14153 The P-38 AND P-39 were both successful fighters, but neither was a success in their intended role: High altitude fighter. Both would find success in other roles, particularly low and medium altitude roles where the turbo was of no value. The entire point of using a turbo was much improved performance above 20,000 feet. But the turbos proved to be an endless source of technical issues. So much so that the P-39 dropped the Turbo Supercharger altogether, while the P-38 had a long string of issues directly or indirectly related to the Turbo. In retrospect, both the P-38 and p-39 should have been designed with dual-stage centrifugal superchargers. It would have meant better performance for the P-39 and many fewer technical issues with the p-38.

[@brianseward9099]

My grandpa was a mechanic on P-39's in North Africa during the war. Wish he was still around to see this video- he'd love it!

[@BlEvNliv]

My grandfather was a mechanic on aircobras in the Soviet Union.

[@brianseward9099]

@MichaelKingsfordGray They sure were! It was no easy task keeping those planes going in such a hostile climate !

[@brianseward9099]

@@BlEvNliv That's awesome ! Whereabouts in the Soviet Union was he stationed ?

[@BlEvNliv]

@@brianseward9099, he was in the Red Army. He started in the infantry as a 18-19 year old, was wounded. After convalescence, he was sent to a mechanic's school. That's when the Soviet Union received Aircobras under the Lend Lease. He moved with the Red Army across the Eastern front, then Eastern Europe and then Germany. They didn't let him demobilize after the war because the USSR didn't have manpower. He left the army in late 1940's. His commander was sent to the Gulag when one of the pilots under his command defected to the West and took the fighter plane with him.

[@brianseward9099]

@@BlEvNliv wow, what an incredible history !

[@smokeybear9180]

The engine in the middle works like a mid engine sport's car. It makes it more maneuverable because of the cg location..It also makes it more touchy right at the edge of a turn but it turns better because of this.

[@hvcbandit5583]

I read somewhere it could also put it into a flat spin

[@raulv04]

But one major disadvantage of having the engine in the middle of the fuselage is that the wings have to bear that weight. So, many times the wings just snapped and see ya later. I love this plane; in fact, when the old Confederate Air Force had an airshow in Zapopan, Mexico, I took a picture next to a P-39. The design is very, very sleek, just like a sports car, and I just loved it. That airshow was about 30 years ago, by the way. I still keep that pic.

[@morgan3688]

@@raulv04 The wings have to take the weight no matter what, thats how planes work. With the exeption of on the ground due to the gear design. But thats a gear design problem not an engine placement problem.

[@hwatson069]

If you didn't stall it!

[@enterthekraken]

This is sort of true. It's not CG though, it's having a smaller second moment of inertia. Think of a spinning ice skater with arms out vs arms in close.

[@Lex5576]

What an excellent restoration! That plane looks like it rolled off the assembly line at Buffalo just yesterday. Restoring these aircraft is of huge importance. It's preserving history, and WWII and the lessons learned should never be forgotten.

[@JC-pu1ej]

This is one aircraft that needs to stay on the ground. A true widowmaker.

[@c.j.1089]

The main problem with the P39 for US theaters was the lack of range. They had terrible range; close to 1/2 what would be considered "poor." Both in Europe and especially the Pacific, this was a death nail. Because of their lack of range, they served a very limited role in short range ground attack and close air support, and the rest were lend/lease to Russia. Russia had considerable use for them because their combat was close (they were being invaded), short range, and largely ground support (low altitude).

[@KevinSmith-qi5yn]

I think the Russians liked it because it was warm inside with the engine right behind you. The eastern front was also a different engagement where the setup makes sense.

[@perezfinichames]

It also had good low altitude performance and was quite rugged. Better suited for the eastern front than the west.

[@ПетроВальцман-ф6в]

Germans screaming on walkie-talkie : Achtung Achtung Pokryshkin in der Luft!

[@Ni999]

Heat is going to have a very strong tendency to flow from nose to tail. The Soviets weren't looking for someplace warm in the sky to sit out the war.

[@perezfinichames]

No Ni999, they weren't. But pilot comfort does play a role in performance. I have little doubt that the high comfort level could have played a role in the warm reception it received from Soviet pilots.

[@Ni999]

@@perezfinichames Except for the fact that you don't seem to understand thermodynamics and heat flow in an airplane at all, you're absolutely 100% correct.

[@NathanielSalzman]

In their biographies, both Chuck Yeager and Bob Hoover talk about the P-39 as their absolute favorite prop plane to fly because the weight of the plane was so well-centered around the engine.

[@piosian4914]

That's where Ferrari got the Mid Engine idea

[@charlesfaure1189]

To FLY, not to fight in.

[@WildBillCox13]

Designed as a high altitude, high speed, interceptor, the P-39 was denied its necessary supercharger, relegating it to low level work in roles for which it had not been intended. Otherwise it was the nicest fighter of the war, with plenty of room, and all the latest comforts, including a vibrating bucket seat. Chuck Yeager described the performance of the low velocity T8 cannon as "like lobbing grapefruit." German pilots said similar things about the similarly short barrel, latewar, 3cm Mk108. Soviets, on the other hand, used high power rounds for the 37mm and 23mm cannon on the Il2. These guns caused severe vibration, were not always synchronous (leading to nose waggle) and, among other things, shook the plane apart over time.

[@SteveT44]

My grandfather was a draftsman at Bell aircraft during the war (later did work on the X-1). He loved talking about the P-39. He said the aircraft from the get-go was meant to be a low altitude attack craft that's why the 30mm in the nose. He stated that after development was well underway the army added requirements for high altitude operation which mandated O2 equipment and a better engine (the Merlin I think). Bell never got the Merlin's as promised so they shipped with the Allision. Performance turned out to be poor at high altitude but the Russians did well in the intended attack role. He said the design was later vindicated because Airacobra's won all the air races after the war.

[@craigpennington1251]

At 368m.p.h. that's damn good without a super charger. It also had the biggest prop to grab all that air for speed without hitting the ground. At almost 13' in diameter for a small plane, that's big.

[@wotevrpnt]

The racers were heavily modified, and flew at low altitude, where the plane had its best performance. (They had lightweight tanks, modified engines w/ increased diameter supercharger impellers, undersized pistons, used 140 octane fuel, and flew at over 400 mph.) The stock plane could not match that performance. But as a low altitude attack plane it excelled. (The other racers, such as P-51s, were modified as well, so it is an achievement.) Still, you have to wonder what the performance could have been with a better powerplant, or at least a two-stage supercharger.

[@aro4098]

Makes me wonder how it would have performed with the Merlins. Maybe, just maybe, it could've been what the P51 later became.

[@cakraft24]

@@wotevrpnt Why would anyone use undersized pistons? Typing mistake maybe?

[@nigeh5326]

AR O I don't think so the P51 once fitted with the Merlin had the whole package performance down low and at height firepower handling and most importantly range the P39 couldn't have matched it on the point

[@liquidleopard4495]

I love Bell's rationale for this plane. "The job is to shoot down aircraft, so we want an anti-aircraft cannon." :)

[@brokeandtired]

37mm would be perfect for killing a Stuka or bomber...(Plus it still had 4 x .50cals on some models which was the same as a Wildcat)....just 1 hit on a Stuka with that 37mm would have knocked it clean out.

[@robertpayne2717]

All the comments about the A-10 People forget about the A-1 Skyraider

[@eaglechawks3933]

Read a book by a Russian ace about his experience in the P-39. He loved his. The Luftwaffe was flying ground support all the time - which meant they were operating low enough for him to engage bombers with his 37mm. Said it was a devastating hit on a bomber wing.

[@drbichat5229]

Read Alexander Pokryshskin memoirs. He loved the airplane. Many missions protecting soviet ground attack planes, so most combats occurred at lower altitudes were this plane excelled

[@ExploringCabinsandMines]

this restoration looks immaculate !!

[@mikecimerian6913]

Possibly better than when it came out of the original plant.

[@maxter3326]

Having cannon in the nose probably makes it easier to aim on target and get kills, then have it in the wings. But, as some mentioned already Soviets had little to none of 37mm armor piercing rounds so it could not of been used against tanks. It mainly served as low altitude fighter and ground support aircraft.

[@devonlord99]

Max Ter but do you really need armour piercing rounds when your shooting at the roof armour of a German tank which was rarely above 20mm thick with a 37mm cannon it could probably still do its job

[@sadfrog5787]

@@devonlord99 it olny used high explosive

[@MACE_HINDU]

Say what you will about it but it's one of the best looking aircraft ever made

[@msmeyersmd8]

One of the most beautiful airplanes from WWII. The curves are only rivaled by the P-38,

[@Imnotyourdoormat]

those super chargers that were spoken of... to my knowledge, were bought in advance by the military, then those blowers were force-fed to the engine/aircraft manufacturers. their drastic mismatch with the P-38 plagued the lightning virtually its entire production which was from wars beginning to end. stopped the 38 from living up to its high-altitude expectations in the eto. however the combo worked extremely well in south pacific, for pilots like bong and mcguire. most of their hops were at angels 15 or lower. tommy was killed by a low-level stall on a still drop-tank equipped 38, something he strongly warned his men about...richard had a flame-out on a P-80 test flight and was killed on 6 august 1945...same day as the hiroshima bomb.....great video on an immaculate airacobra!!!...kutgw...

[@hermitvoncrab7174]

37mm cannon worked on tanks. Chuck Yager said the cannon worked but it was hard to aim because it was like thowing a grapefruit off the back of a truck

[@19Koty96]

Not for the Soviets, they only used HE on them.

[@Philliben1991]

I've read the Soviet pilots fired at point blank range so they didn't miss. Dangerous perhaps but there was a pretty big war going on. They used the 37mm as the primary weapon, often they removed the wing mounted machine guns to reduce weight.

[@wrightflyer7855]

Chuck Yeager said the P-39 was the best handling aircraft he'd ever flown. Not a high altitude performer of course, but it served its purpose well on the Eastern Front. And contrary to popular belief it was not primarily used as a tank buster, but rather a general purpose ground attack aircraft and was very successful. A family friend of ours was an aeronautical engineer at Bell and gave me a tour of the Buffalo plant in the early 1960s--mostly helicopters then, but he really knew Bell history. The P-39 in this video is superb!

[@RussianThunderrr]

Soviets used it primarily as front line air superiority fighter. They empty the wings from 4 of 30 cal wing MG, since 37mm and 2X50 cal was plenty to shred any aircraft to pieces, and it became a 400lb lighter and more maneuverable fighter.

[@sheilaolfieway1885]

war thunder has these planes beautiful bird....

[@danzervos7606]

@@RussianThunderrr Americans used them in North Africa for ground attack for which they were effective. On Guadalcanal they really helped blunt Japanese ground attacks trying to retake the Island. Against the Zero they just didn't have the altitude capability and the P-400s (with the 20 mm cannon, as shown in one of the pictures where the gun sticks out further from the nose) sent to the Pacific were fitted with British oxygen systems for which American oxygen masks wouldn't attach - at least that is the story.

[@RussianThunderrr]

@@danzervos7606 wrote: "Americans used them in North Africa for ground attack for which they were effective." -- Americans use in Pacific P-39 for ground attacks as well as dog fighting with Japan's Zeros(to losses 1:1, since Zeros lacked radio, and could not coordinated and effective attacks and defense in dog fights), but also in Italy P-39 was used for ground attacks, since it could carry 500lb bomb, even French use them as ground attack in Saigon in 1947-51 after WWII, including Normandie-Neimen.

[@macnutz4206]

@@RussianThunderrr I think the nature of the war in Russia often keep German fighters at lower altitudes, to protect ground troops and installations from the many ground pounders the Russians threw at them and their tanks. A surprising number of German fighters were shot down by the low flying little beasties.

[@craigpennington1251]

This aircraft would fit me perfect because I'm short. You can keep your Mustangs and such, I'll take this any day.This one here is a real beauty. Thanks guys on a perfect restoration of the best non-supercharged fighter of WWII. I call it a big block deuce coupe with wings. Also thanks for NOT adding music.

[@drcovell]

I can understand your love of the plane’s compact cabin-any guys around six feet said “I have to go outside to change my mind.” ;-)

[@craigpennington1251]

@@drcovell It's like most of the cruiser motorcycles. All have forward controls which makes them dangerous for me because I'm all stretched out and very limited on movement. I can handle the big size but need controls closer to me.

[@melgillham462]

The interesting thing about the P-39 was the drive shaft for the prop. It did not like fast transitions in Rpm's the shaft was prone to breaking. That was the downside that steered pilots away from a gorgeous aircraft.

[@theflyingfool]

What a beauty! Well done you guys!

[@RussianThunderrr]

Thank you for the video, I'm glad to see such a rear legendary aircraft restored to glorious as new condition, and been airworthy.

[@peterott8053]

When I was little we had little planes out of foam, they came in an envelope. and had a little prop to the front. I always thought the aircobra was the most beautiful of them... now 22 years later.. I still agree with myself that this bird has some beauty to it!

[@markmorris3579]

Peter Ott-I remember when those were made of balsa wood,and the prop was powered by a rubber band.We spent hours flying them in the field next to our house!

[@digitaal_boog]

God I remember those. Those things are still around, they’re still pretty fun in my late teens

[@garymcaleer6112]

Beautiful lines for the day. Like a little ballerina with a big gun!

[@oliversmith9200]

A ballerina with a big gun... That's funny.

[@MrAndrew1953]

Very impressive restoration, great work on that - congratulations. I haven't heard of DeHaviland Hornet before. Looks like a smaller, compact version of a mosquito.

[@danzervos7606]

A fighter version - I believe it was a postwar model.

[@Goatboysminion]

Yes indeed. Basically a single seat,long range Mosquito fighter. If the Allies had it in 42/43, it would have been a world beater. Four 20mm cannon, 476mph speed, range on internal fuel 3000 miles. Too late for WW2, but despite no one really wanting propeller aircraft, jets being newer and sexier. The RAF ended up buying a few hundred and they did some excellent work during the Malayan Emergency.

[@psk1w1]

@@Goatboysminion The first production Hornet was delivered in February '45, so it was a WW2 combat plane. It was fast at 487mph using 2000bhp Merlins. Imagine if it got Griffon engines with 2500bhp!

[@geoffmarchiori5672]

The book " The Bell P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra fighters" by Yefim Gordon is a great read on these planes in Soviet service. It has a lot of technical information but also on flight characteristics, that 'flat spin'.

[@whirving]

The Soviet pilots used to land here in Fairbanks, Alaska and ferry the planes, many of them P-39s, on the final leg over to Russia. They did cold weather and other testing on them here too. There are a lot of old photos from that time, great to see one so well restored.

[@arrowbflight5082]

William Irving That is true. There was two means of getting aircraft to Russia. One was by shipping vessels from N.Y up the North Atlantic to Murmansk. The other route was the N.W.S.R. Many P-39s, P-40s, A - 20 Boston Havoc's and B-25 Mitchell's were delivered to Nome. U.S. ground crew's would paint red star's on them. Nome was a dicey place to fly in or out of. There were many accidents. Cheers.

[@kkarllwt]

@@arrowbflight5082 A third . Brazil, Africa , Iran. Russia. 10,000 man US army air base on the eastern tip of Brazil. Google US army base brazil. I think it is still a commercial airport. Areoporte.

[@JustABoringAsianGuy]

US pilots: “Who made this sh*t? Why would they do that! This is by far the worst nightmare I’ve ever seen in my entire life! I have a family back home for crying out loud!” German tank crews on Eastern Front:”Who made that sh*t? Why would they do that! This is by far the worst nightmare I’ve ever seen in my entire life! I have a family back home for crying out loud!”

[@mountainguyed67]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Good one.

[@davidvaughn7752]

What an absolutely beautiful machine! I'm sure it was lethal for the role it was designed for. The epitome in 1940's style and a real work of industrial art! Thanks for the vid.

[@ericgrace9995]

The Russian air force was not seen as an independent strategic force but rather as an arm of its armoured/ ground forces....it's 37mm cannon could do one hell of a lot of damage to ground targets....and it could punch through the hull tops of tanks and mangle half tracks.

[@kayraaa2646]

Eric Grace Wish someone made APFSDS ammo for the 37mm.

[@danielcamacho1913]

The USA never sent armor piercing ammo for the 37mm. If they did it might have been a waste, because that gun had a low muzzle velocity.

[@ericgrace9995]

@@danielcamacho1913 A 37 mm firing non AP ammo would punch through the roof / engine deck of a tank. Some German units field improved their Panthers with extra plate armour on the turret roof and over the engine decks..primarily the fans. I have seen photographs of units that have done this in Italy.... where the worst they would be facing would be 20mm aircraft cannon.

[@joeschlotthauer840]

I just checked my attic, back yard, and garage, I don't have any to DeHavilland Hornet props laying around... EBAY!!

[@HiVoltish]

It had the turbo supercharger of the p38 but the people in charge decided that it wouldn't need the high alt performance. The US could've had the p63 in 1939 but nope.

[@danzervos7606]

The turbocharger installation just didn't work on the P-39. The turbocharger hanged down below the engine in the airstream for cooling (where the P-39's radiator normally was). The radiator was moved to one side of the fuselage and the intercooler to the other side with all the associated piping crossing the engine compartment. The top speed was disappointing, not reaching the desired 400 mph. They thought that if they cleaned up the design and used a higher altitude gear ratio for the supercharger they could achieve 400 mph. They got close, reaching 385 mph in one mark. The P-63 had an entirely different supercharger system. They lengthened the engine compartment and consequently the plane some 14 inches or so and put in a second supercharge off an engine PTO through a variable speed hydraulic coupling and they added water injection. While the P-63 usual published top speed is normally given as around 420 mph, in tests it was achieving speeds around 440 mph.

[@callumbush1]

08:10 it hasn't been called the Confederate Air Force for 20 years, Kiwis are so isolated that they're behind the times!

[@ufoengines]

Knew a WW2 vet who flew an Aircobra after the war who was only five foot seven inches and he said it was really cramped ! Said it was an ok flyer but he like his P-47 and the P-51 more .

[@daviddonaghy7568]

My father was not a fan of the P-39 only because his shoulders were too wide to sit comfortably in the cockpit.

[@billsmith5166]

I think it's one of the most beautiful planes produced in WWII. Should have been the first A-10.

[@rapitisioannis]

no, it was a a bomber interceptor, not a close support aircraft

[@voss0749]

@@rapitisioannis The reason why it was not used as a tank buster is that the US never supplied the soviets with AP ammo. It was used to attack soft ground targets.

[@UncleQ57]

The first dedicated close support plane was Soviet Ilyushin-2 or Il-2

[@woblesocket3215]

@@rapitisioannis On the premise that is was an aircraft built around a cannon, and on the nose at that, yes, one can call it the first Warthog.

[@rapitisioannis]

@@voss0749 no! always it was used as an escort for the Il2, absolutely effective against Axis fighters(take a look to the confirmed victories of Russian pilots on P39), as it was an excelent frame at low levels....take some better look about this plane!

[@randymarsh-Tegridy420]

Get to see John Bagley fly his P63 King Cobra regularly. Those Allison’s sound amazing.

[@falconeaterf15]

Newzealanders have contributed so much to aviation, past and present. Amazing.

[@davidtaylor351]

Do you specialise in idiotic and morally sanctimonious commentary!? Especially of a kind that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion! Otherwise why would you bag a whole nation because of the 'actions' as stated by you anyway, of some people? Most NZers wouldn't have the foggiest clue, about what you are talking about. Let alone any involvement in the matter. They would have no more knowledge of it than you, or anybody else would have - about everything that might, or might not be, going on in your own country, at any particular time! So yes indeed, could you please provide the sources and any verifiable supporting evidence to confirm your statements. And i will pass it on to the Police and other appropriate authorities. Thank you.

[@bigglesmcg]

@Rob Devard that's called Australia. Time to put the crack pipe down now.

[@wpatrickw2012]

This was Chuck Yeager's favorite airplane (according to his autobiography).

[@chrisrichards2544]

It was also a favourite of Eric "Winkle" Brown who used one for many trips in early 1945 ... including landing it on the aircraft carrier HMS Pretoria Castle!!

[@OkieSketcher1949]

A family friend flew these out of Puerto Rico during WWII looking for German U-Boats. They carried one bomb slung under the fuselage. He said his damn near killed him. He was flying as a wingman when the lead pilot spotted a U-Boat on the surface. They dove at it, with the lead plane well ahead. He dropped his bomb, which hit the sub right behind the conning tower. The bomb did not explode! Instead, it bounced. The sub went nose up. The bomb came back up and damn near hit our friend’s plane! He did a hard turn in an attempt to keep from being hit by the bomb. In doing so he rolled the plane to the upside down position. With the engine behind the pilot it was very hard to get the plane to return to the upright position. It just started to fall in the upside down position. All he could see was the ocean coming “up” at him. He finally was able to apply enough power to enable him to fly upside down and forward to the point he was able to regain control of the plane and get it right side up. The U-Boat escaped, but he figured the crew must have had their bell rung pretty loudly. He said in all his years of flying submarine patrols that was the only one he ever saw.

[@feetgoaroundfullflapsC]

@SMOG --That was if caught in a spin i read, especially with a rear cg. That was an inverted maneuver as posted. Different maneuvers. Im an Aerobatic CFI.

[@chrisrushlau]

War seems to be like that.

[@feetgoaroundfullflapsC]

@SMOG--Right. Never been on an inverted one. Thanks. Always try to keep speed when inverted. The pilot on that above post was not on a spin as understood. Just inverted. I saw on another P39 video an instructor on the video advising to recover with full aileron opposite the spin. No wonder they could not get it out. Ailerons neutral and kick the rudder. I taught spins on Piper "Trawmahawk". Once i got into a flat spin from 2,300 feet-came out at about 300 feet agl. The student froze on controls.. scary. Didnt want to teach anyone until could figure that one out (three months) spin diet.

[@martind349]

@@feetgoaroundfullflapsC appetite suppressant

[@ebbonemint]

Beautiful plane I’d love to build my own and improve the design with new technology and aerodynamic principles.

[@GGwp5656]

This plane worked legendary in the Soviet Union…Very beautiful

[@luciusvorenus9445]

Very well done! Beautiful restoration! She looks like fun to fly. I hope there will be videos of the Warhawks & Kingfishers.

[@Red-Magic]

Americans: We put a big cannon in the nose, but had to move the engine back to fit it in. Germans and Soviets: Excuse me, are you incompetent?

[@Argentvs]

Pretty much they were in that regard. Lack of out of the box thinking, but mainly the decision making people that banned things they didn't liked,like McNair sabotaging the M26 Pershing development and delaying years the introduction of the 76 and 90 mm guns for tanks.

[@mountainguyed67]

@@Argentvs yeah, the Army Air Corps should have bombed McNair a couple years earlier... It would have saved a lot of lives.

[@badcornflakes6374]

Russians are very, very clever people. Never underestimate them. Unless you're the Japanese in 1904-05 or Mongolians

[@1lorko]

I've seen one still sitting in a field in Honiara (Guadalcanal)

[@GTjaxson]

I have seen the same one. The split pins and lock wire still shine bright.

[@jakobc.2558]

This is such a interesting out of the box design. Sadly the war it found itself in was not quite the war which the cobra was designed for. I do think that lend leasing the cobras to the soviets was the right choice though. Something that many people dont know is that moral/strategical bombing was much more intense on the eastern front. Nazi germany wanted to wipe out the entire soviet population in order to create "lebensraum" and so bomber raids were much more brutal and frequent on the eastern front. However germany lacked the technology to produce a good bomb sight so most of the time german bombers were attacking at relatively low altitute (at least compaired to U.S. bombers) so the cobras could do their job much more effectively and save countless lives which would otherwise have been consumed by the inhuman nazi german war machine.

[@watchfordpilot]

What a beautiful restoration!

[@killingfields1424]

King Cobra is origibally fitted with two stage supercharget but since they religate it to be used by the Russians, they remove the twin supercharger and replace it with a single turbocharger and power is half gone like the british P38 castrated Lightning which discarded by the british and returned it back to Lockheed. The Navy once favored The King Cobra but replaced by the Corsair for all Cobras were sent to the Russians with some spitfires but tge Russians like the Cobras because its so effective in.closed ground support roles

[@jhaedtler]

My Dad flew 39"s and 400's in New Caledonia. He said they saved his life more then once! He love them. He learned a lot from that beast!

[@Caseytify]

It was disliked in USAAF service because HQ kept putting the planes in an air superiority role, instead of ground attack, for which it was designed. The Soviets used it in the latter role, so they were more satisfied.

[@TheHangarHobbit]

I got to touch a P-39 at Lakland AFB (they have an amazing number of fighters, my thumbnail is me with their Thunderbolt) and what amazed me is how teeny tiny the P39 really is, its a little bitty thing compared to later fighters like the Mustang and Thunderbolt.

[@johnhardin4358]

Wonder how it compares to the Zero -Sen? It's a lot smaller than a Corsair. Performance wise, the Corsair was the second fastest fighter in WW2. I thing the Thunderbolt had a few mph on the Mustang. It was mostly engine. It was nicknamed The Jug.

[@RussianThunderrr]

John Hardin - Zero was a lot more maneuverable and had better high altitude performance, but lucked the radio, all in all 1:1 loses. As far as P-47 there were 200 units delivered to Soviet Union, and pilots absolutely hated its medium and low altitude performance vs nimble Me-109, same goes to Mustangs.

[@dansyz80]

2:14 IL76 marked - hahahahhaha good stuff boys! Great Hi from Canada! Привет! Люблю Новую Зеландию!

[@geoffdearth7360]

Marshal Pokryshkin in "The Unknown War" said how much he liked the P-39.

[@stevenmoore4612]

I like how this plane is different! With the engine behind the cock-pit and the gun layout! The overall design is unique, and it looks great!

[@BisdremisKostas]

7:48 '' HOOKER HARNESS '' very reputable brand name. :)

[@mqbitsko25]

A hammer makes a poor screwdriver. A screwdriver can't drive nails for sh*t. Whether this was a great plane or a lemon depended on what your task happened to be.

[@joepiet]

My instructor flew one during WW2 in the Pacific

[@jaypoole8056]

So the P-39 is the grandaddy to the A-10 Warthog. A plane built around a big cannon.

[@CraigReeve]

That is a beautiful thing, congratulations on a superb restoration. And Who gives a shite about its characteristics, its still a piece of world war history!

[@paulhightower9086]

Beautiful plane. To my eye you can see the lineage between the P-39 and the P-59 Airacomet.

[@zoneofendless.]

Aesthetically I love the P-59, but performance wise it was not good at all except for its turn rate and armament

[@samuelbiskin3416]

Beautiful airplanes. Too bad the P39 wasn't turbosupercharged like the p38

[@RussianThunderrr]

The other draw back of P-39 that would be hard to overcome is "short legs"(range) of that aircraft, since it only had a wing fuel tanks(with the engine taking space where fuselage tank would be otherwise), and that is the other reason why this aircraft was so unpopular among Allies. The line of this airplane is beautiful, its a shame, that many people literally "poo-poo"(POSer and ect...) on Aircobra(starting with Russians, since it was the American aircraft), to British and Americans, well Spitfire and Mustang was there, sad...

[@rapitisioannis]

spesifications of US Army in1939, blame them

[@troypetty8141]

It was at first. It had very high performance and climbed like a bat out of hell.

[@rpurdey]

The Army takes a lot of heat for deleting the turbo but there is reason to believe that the Bell design team, if not Larry Bell himself, asked for it's removal. The company had nearly gone broke unsuccessfully developing the YMF-1 Airacuda because of its electrical and turbo problems that were never really solved. The P-39 contract was needed quickly to avoid bankruptcy and the turbo on the P-39, while providing good high altitude performance, actually hurt performance at lower altitudes due to it's weight and partial protrusion from the side of the fuselage. With a lengthy development foreseen (overheating was a constant problem) and the P-38 in development the way may have been been clear to go the obvious route of deleting the turbo to get the plane in production.

[@dukecraig2402]

@@rpurdey It was both of them, Bell needed to get a production line up and running or the company was going to fold and Hap Arnold needed to get planes into the field as quickly as he could, Bell sent the designer of the P39, a guy named Kelsey, over to England on "business" so he couldn't interfere in the meeting that Bell had with Arnold, as far as the scoop for the turbo that stuck out of the side of the plane the story about it's removal and the removal of the turbo has gotten kind of distorted over the years, a lot of people misinterpret the whole thing about the NACA study concerning the scoops removal, with a working turbo the scoop offers virtually no drag since that's where the turbo takes in its air negating it's presence as far as drag, and a single stage supercharger system that's compounded with a turbo will make more power at low altitudes than a 2 speed 2 stage supercharger on the same engine because an engine loses from 250 to 450 HP (depending on varying engine/supercharger arrangements) turning the machinery of the 2nd stage at low altitudes where it's not needed, but a turbo is a waste energy recovery system so the power to spin the turbo is free, that's why aircraft that are intended for low level work like the Seafire and the last version of the F4U made during the Korean War for ground attack had single stage superchargers, at low altitudes where the 2nd stage isn't needed it's just dragging power off of the engine, between that and the fact that a turbo provides more air at the highest of altitudes is why the USAAC decreed that all aircraft designed for high altitude use the turbo compounded system and is the same reason that at the beginning of the war the Allison only had a single stage supercharger, before the war the USAAC strictly forbid Allison from using any of their resources to develop a 2 stage 2 speed supercharger for it, the NACA tests wind tunnel tests were to get a drag number on the airframe so they could calculate the speed of the plane with just the single stage Allison engine in it without the turbo scoop, a lot of people misinterpret the study as the NACA recommending the removal of the turbo when it was simply to get a drag number on the plane without it.

[@viper2148]

Every American fighter aircraft of WWII found success somewhere.

[@GBLynden]

The cadence of their accents makes it hard to understand them.

[@HistAvFilmUnit]

Ahh sorry about that.

[@RichardAHolt]

@@HistAvFilmUnit I'm from the southern US. Your accents are just fine. Nice job on a underrated plane.

[@mountainguyed67]

@@HistAvFilmUnit I understood just fine too. Great video!

[@tomfrazier1103]

Sounds a mellower and more comprehensible Australian accent. A lot of Americans seem to see N.Z., Aotearoa as a"Classier Australia". With cuter natives, Dame Kiri.

[@pilotsmodels7885]

Soviet Ace Alexander Pokryshkin applied his famous "thunderstorm formula" during using of this airplane: "altitude, speed, maneuver, fire". So this airplane is perfect for boom & zoom tactic.

[@Laptop46]

The sport car of planes. Hell it even has a mid engine design.

[@Dusty-xy4uo]

you don't see those very often though.

[@hoilst]

And spins like a Toyota MR2...

[@badcornflakes6374]

@@hoilst Not when you play to it's strengths

[@stupidburp]

P-39 is often underrated. It had some superior flight characteristics compared to the P-40 such as speed, power/weight, rate of climb, and service ceiling. Both aircraft had poor power at high altitudes but for some reason the Warhawk has received less criticism for this than the Aerocobra. While neither one was ideal for high altitude fighting they both performed well at lower altitudes and were both produced in large numbers.

[@Sacto1654]

I think had Allison developed the V-1710 with a decent supercharging system, they could have solved the altitude performance problem. The P-39 with such an engine would have been a _potent_ fighter.

[@thomasmaloney843]

P39s were used in Bendix air races and were just as fast or faster than a P51 down on the deck. Low altitude performance of P39s were stunning. P40s were great down on the deck as well. USAAF did trap tests with these planes hitting 388 mph. Official speed was sand bagged.

[@mcm95403]

GORGEOUS restoration! I've always loved the P-39 and the later P-63.

[@jayg1438]

Thumbs up to the Kiwis and Ozzies. P-39 was designed in 1937 and first flown in 1938. Many light and Medium tanks of the time mounted 37-45mm canon as their main armament (PZIII, Czech LTvz38, T-26, Cruiser tanks etc) so this canon would have been quite effective in handling early war tanks. A 37mm round is also going to be very effective against the roof armor of most WWII tanks in general. Fun video, thanks!

[@mikearmstrong8483]

P-39 = Soviet tank buster. Sorry, but......complete myth. The Soviets never used the P-39 as an antitank plane or for ground attack. The confusion arises in the translation from Russian. The role of the aircraft was described as "low level support of ground forces". To Westerners that means "ground support" as in attacking enemy ground forces in contact with friendly forces, and with a big-ass cannon in the nose it seems to be obvious it would attack tanks. But to the Soviets, the term meant low altitude fighter cover for friendly forces. And according to their own records, that's exclusively what they used it for; low level dogfighting. The US shipped slightly over 1/2 million rounds of 37mm ammo for the Oldsmobile cannon mounted on the P-39. All that ammo was HE. We didn't send any solid armor piercing rounds. And the Soviets were not about to open a factory to produce ammo for a gun that was in relatively limited use by them. When the P-39 saw any use in ground attack on the Eastern front, it was just incidents of pilots strafing ground targets of opportunity on their way home from air superiority sorties, as pilots of any nation would do. The misconception has persisted for decades, in large part due to the fact that Soviet war diaries were not available to Western research until the fall of the Soviet Union, by which time the internet had replaced true research and wikipedia was destined to become the vessel for dumbing down the masses.

[@jisleta]

That’s the Grand Daddy of the A10 Warthog right there.

[@spaceman081447]

In this video, Paul McSweeny, the director of Pioneer Aero Limited, states that the P-39's 37mm cannon would not have been effective against tanks. I doubt this very much. The tank-killer variant of the Ju-87G Stuka used a 37mm (1.5 in) cannon to good effect against tanks. And most ground attack aircraft since (example: A-10 "Warthog") have used 30mm cannon.

[@spaceman081447]

@MRGRUMPY53 RE: "The American 37mm cannon fired high explosive rounds." OK, but couldn't they have supplied it with anti-tank rounds for anti-armor missions?

[@loganinkosovo]

The old joke during WWII was "What's a P-400 (They renamed the P-39s the P-400)? It's a P-40 with a Zero on it's tail."

[@ken-dw4or]

My friends dad flew B-17 in WW2 (15AF-97BG) and had another joke, you could always tell a pilot who flew the P-39 they talk in high pitch voices because they sat on top of that 37 mm gun.

[@Coltnz1]

With Avspecs Ltd and Pioneer Aero Ltd, what an amazing facility Ardmore is!

[@windyworm]

My uncle was ground crew for Airacobras for a short time and said their biggest problem was pilots thinking there was a tail wheel.

[@donf3877]

The P-39, as well as the P-40, got a bad rep at the beginning of the war... and yet the Flying Tigers had great success with both of them before the war ever broke out. And the F4F Wildcat had a similar bad rap. They were all being gunned down in numbers at the beginning of the war and it was thought they were not up to the task against the Zero. The problem wasn't so much with the planes, as with the tactics. The Flying Tigers never ever attempted to dogfight a Zero. Rather, they would make high speed passes at them. Then, if they didn't shoot it down, would come around for another pass. Proof...The F4F was being still be used right up to the end of the war since it was the only fighter that could land and take off from the short deck of the jeep carriers. These hit and run tactics were finally introduced and used (along with the lead and wing man formation) at the same time the F4U and P-38 and F6F Hellcat came into play and the results were much better. Yes, the latter three planes were better, but it was the change tactics that made a HUGE difference as not even these planes could dogfight a Zero and win. One of the highest scoring P-38 pilots went down when he broke the rules and tried to dogfight a Zero to increase his score. Also what needs to be taken into account is... most of the experienced hot Zero pilots were already taken out of the fight by the time the F4U and P-38 and F6F came into play. So yes, the F6F Hellcat had the best kill ratio... but they were up against more lightly trained and inexperienced pilots. The same can be said in the Korean war. The MIG was much better in turns so... don't try to turn with it just make high speed passes. All that being said... I still say the F4U was the best looking aircraft ever produced.

[@smiley3012]

That is one of the most beautiful planes I have ever seen. Thank you guys for such a great job and video.

[@MonkPetite]

My comment on the caption picture. It’s not true the USA pilots disliked it. But needed bigger and better and these where already send to allied countries. The p 39 was designed before the war , awesome for that time , the USA was not at war yet. Nevertheless It was hard to improve and so the king cobra was made to follow up.

[@danielcamacho1913]

I read somewhere that in most of the P-39 variants (up to P-39Q!) many of the changes were made at the request of the Russians. "Can you make all the secondary guns the same caliber?" "Can you make the big gun more accessible for maintenance?" They got the P-63, which was faster because of the wing design... "Great! Can we get some more ammo, too?" And eventually the 37mm ammo almost doubled. :)

[@KorbinX]

Beautiful bird. Great restoration ^-^

[@ElwoodPDowd-nz2si]

Reminds me of the Yak. Though I'm not sure if they compare.

[@johnstauffer8772]

Prettiest airplane ever. Someone should build some 3/4 size replicas with modern V 8 engines and carbon fiber?