The P-39 & P-63 - American Failure Turned Soviet Success

[@aviationdeepdive]

Feel free to join our Discord community! - discord.gg/WCevgcufwJ Consider supporting us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/AviationDeepDive

[@FRIEND_711]

This is why videos like this are so awesome, it really is nice to hear about these stories. Bravo man. thank you as always ^w^

[@halgilley5717]

Good video and accurate for the most part. A few errors you may want to correct. Supercharging: all Allison's were equipped with an internal single stage supercharger just like the Luftwaffe planes. P-39 was single speed, the 190 was two speed and the 109 was variable speed. P-39 single speed was high gear and overboosting was prevented at low altitude with reduced throttle initially and by mid 1942 was automatically controlled by an automatic manifold pressure regulator. Altitude: The P-39N/Q had uprated engines. A standard P-39N had a service ceiling of 38,500' (FW190 34,000') and climbed at 2650 feet per minute at 20,000' (FW190 1900fpm), so if the P-39 was a low altitude plane then the FW190 was more so. No plane could withstand the disadvantage of altitude performance on the Eastern front and still have the victory record of the P-39. It shot down more enemy planes than any other American fighter, It was fully the equal of the Luftwaffe planes at all altitudes. Turbocharger: The turbo was deleted from the P-39 (and P-40) to get them into service ASAP. The turbocharged P-38 didn't enter combat until December 1942 and the P-47 didn't see combat until May 1943. The P-39 (and P-40) were available for combat in 1941. The Allies would have been hard pressed in 1942 without the P-39.

[@runfrcover925]

Great video! I like the in-depth service and ferry history that others don't get into. Your content is growing well.

[@aviationdeepdive]

Appreciate that! Unfortunately, these long form videos don't seem to do very well views wise, not sure why

[@edwardpate6128]

A good video except for one thing. It perpetuates the myth that the Allison engine did not have a supercharger. ALL Allison's had a supercharger, a single speed/single stage unit that provided great performance up to about 15K feet. lack of a 2nd stage and 2nd speed being its weakness. The later P-63 King Cobra had a 2nd supercharger stage that solved that issue.

[@stevep5408]

Thanks for the info

[@bobsakamanos4469]

I believe he meant that it was without its turbo as per the prototype. All military combat aircraft had superchargers of course.

[@SPavlo]

Thanks ! Thorough research and report, which does not skip that Pokryshkin and others probably flew P-63's over Berlin, while supposedly restricted to the Japan front. Well, Kingcobras did fight over Korea later, but against UN forces. And yes, not only Stalin, but today Kremlin just censor that the "great patriotic war" was also won because of "Cobras", Jeeps, Studebakers, GMC's, US canned meat, leather, boots, etc.

[@englishpassport6590]

The exact same situation was encountered with the 24 cylinder Napier Sabre powered Hawker Typhoon and Tempest but this engine never got a two speed upgrade. Not long after the Sabre was developed the Sabre engine designer Frank Halford was forced to work on the De Havilland Jet engine team. The Sabre was neglected in its development potential because of that.

[@old_guard2431]

Comment is on point. I believe it is less a myth and more a misunderstanding of how piston aero engines work. I.E. the difference between engine-driven superchargers and exhaust-driven turbochargers, and the fact that both can be used on one engine.

[@TheLateBird7]

You're in top form here, again. Thanks very much for a highly enjoyable 40 minutes.

[@hydrashieldbasementservice8453]

excellent video.... hard to find a more comprehensive explanation of the Soviet pilots!! bravo!

[@rostronmark]

wonderful presentation - thank you

[@paddy1952]

A first time viewer here, and this is a damn fine video. In 1981 I was flying out of Fort Nelson, BC, in support of resource extraction. One of my duties was to fly a Cessna-185 on floats hauling people and supplies in and out of remote sites along the Liard and MacKenzie Rivers, and remote exploration camps further north. Fort Nelson is Mile 300 on the Alaska Hwy and was a refueling point for aircraft enroute the Soviet Union from CONUS. Northeast of Ft Nelson was a camp on July Lake, near the BC/AL/NWT borders. I flew in there on floats and found a P-39 that had obviously bellied into the tundra-like ground. Judging by the nature of the damage to the prop, I don't think that the engine was running when it touched down. The gear was still retracted. You can just imagine a young ferry pilot, probably American, lost in the weather over Northern BC, finally running out of fuel. A few months later I heard that the oil workers had bulldozed the P-39 into scrap making a cutline. Having actually seen it made all that history real to me.

[@Hartley_Hare]

What a fantastic story, and a heartbreaking end to the P-39's story.

[@dannynye1731]

Only fools kill rare aircraft

[@PdxGxs]

That was criminal, or should have been, to destroy the craft.

[@thomassweets]

Great video!

[@MarijnRoorda]

Excellent documentary. Keep these coming. I especially like the war stories.

[@ericbeaton7211]

Ever since I built the Airfix 1/72 scale kit back in the 1960’s I have had a soft spot for the Airacobra. Really enjoyed your video.

[@craigpennington1251]

My #1 aircraft of WWII, the P-39. A dream to fly one. Outstanding video of facts that seemed to be lost until now. Would love to see more of them restored to flying condition. Thanks for posting an aircraft that doesn't get much attention at all.

[@stevenweasel2678]

VERY GOOD ACCOUNT OF THE TIMELINE OF THIS CLASSIC AIRCRAFT

[@martindice5424]

Great vid mate. As to kill claims I am VERY dubious about Luftwaffe ‘experten’ victories on the Eastern Front. How have Hartman’s claims been verified (if at all) for instance? All pilots and air gunners over claimed (roughly by about 40-75%) for very understandable reasons.

[@Hartley_Hare]

There's a website a few years old where someone has tried to verify all of Hartmann's victories. I think it was a work in progress, judging by the date on the comments, and there were some uncertainties. But I agree - I don't think sone of the claims are credible.

[@dbeelee8564]

@1:47 Pic of a design room. Not sure where this pic is from, but I'm fairly sure it's not Bell Aircraft. Maybe the room was later renovated, but the building was only some 20 ish years old when I was in it. Looks too large to be the early years in the old Consolidated Aircraft plant.

[@scottmurphy650]

Honestly, the P-39 had the most beautiful lines of any fighter from any country. The decision to delete the supercharger was a galactically stupid one. With it, it was a force to be reckoned with at high altitude.

[@ashestodust2313]

Another good aviation channel? Nice!

[@aviationdeepdive]

Thanks a lot!

[@bwayne40004]

@0:41, several P-63s, one P-39. @1:00, view of two P-63s. One minute in and I am going to pay attention to see how many times the two aircraft are confused.

[@mathewkelly9968]

How many photos how much footage etc do you think exist for either aircraft ?

[@bwayne40004]

@@mathewkelly9968 Since we only had a few Army fighter models at the beginning of the war (P-36, P-39, P-40) with the P-39 and P-40 sharing the major load, I'd say we had a lot of photo and film content for the P-39. Especially in the early war and New Guinea area. P-63? Not as much as it was used for training and target practice and went to the Russians.

[@dbeelee8564]

Nice work on the video. Considering women's WW2 efforts, it's supporters have little recognition for the P-39 campaign. As this vid points out, construction and flying them to Alaska was prominent.

[@Elrusoargentino]

Althought not perfect, it is evident that you practiced a lot to correctly pronounce Russian first and last names. Congratulations, your did it very well!!! Furthermore, I know the material you used for the video (Memoirs of Pokryshkin, Golodnikov's interview, etc) and it is great that you include it in the video, most creators didn't.

[@williamroberts1819]

Beautiful

[@Troy_nov1965]

I read Chuck Yeagaers book ( Yeager: An Autobiography ) several years back and as I recall he said the P39 was one of his favorite planes , he seemed to have a real soft soft for them. By the way its a great book !

[@dbeelee8564]

Suggestion for your introductory note. Ahh, first flown in Ohio? The assembly line was in Wheatfield, NY. But, don't let that confuse things, the far end of the runway is in Naigara Falls. Lol. Jokes aside, earliest info on the P-39 may be fouhd at the Niagara Aerospace Museum, located on the same tarmac as Bell Aircraft. The history of Bell is the history of building unique flying craft. Hidden tech in plain sight (for locals). By military standards, "Could we get a fighter with a cannon?" Bell's reply, "How many do you want?" N.A.M. has a P-39 fuselage on display. Well worth a visit.

[@cassubia]

Excellent video of a much-maligned aircraft. Many thanks!

[@gmansard641]

My grandmother built these at the Bell factory in Buffalo.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

The P-39 had altitude limitations but it's main problem for the Americans was range. In both Europe and the Pacific the Americans needed an aircraft that could fly relatively long distances - if it was to have an offensive role. Early on - in the Pacific - the Japanese were attacking the Americans - coming TO them - so range wasn't as big an issue - but once the Americans went on the offensive - it's range limitations precluded it from doing anything at all. Soviet air fields were much closer to the front and they had Germans Attacking them - a lot - so range was not a problem - and since more of the combat was ground related - again - the P-39's limitations were not a problem. The other thing about the P-39 was that it had all it's main armament in the fuselage - where the 37 and the .50's were. The Russians took the .30's out of the wings to increase it's role rate. Guns in the wings had to be harmonized to converge at a specific range - and the Russians didn't like doing that. So - the P-39 was easily converted to a Soviet Style aircraft operating the way they liked. That and it had a really good radio by Russian Standards. So the Russians loved it. In contrast - they did not like Spitfires and Hurricanes with guns in the wings. The P-39's could also carry a moderate sized bomb under the fuselage. This wasn't much by American Standards for a Fighter Plane but was compared to many Soviet Built Fighters. All things considered - the P--39 was the perfect Lend Lease aircraft to send the Soviets. Kelsey - who despite his low rank played a major part in fighter production for the Americans - was diverted to England - and not there to fight for the 2nd Stage Supercharger - which he regretted. The thing is - the P-39 - even with a 2nd Stage Supercharger - wouldn't have had the range the Americans needed offensively. Putting the 37 in the nose - meant moving the engine to the middle - which meant that you couldn't put a fuel tank there. The pointy nose and the tricycle gear - meant you lacked depth to the front of the aircraft - where ducting for a Supercharger or fuel could have gone. So - some of the things about the 39's design that were considered positive - had their draw backs. There were reasons why other manufacturers didn't do that. .

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The P-39 was also an unstable gun platform ( according to test pilots at Wright-Patterson ) near the stall region. That same instability was the source of the tumble and spin reputation, and landing accidents.

[@Captain_Deadstick]

I agree. Also I think one thing that doesn't get brought up as well is it's, terrible center of gravity and it liked to enter in unrecoverable flat spins in a dogfight. According to Bud Anderson in his book To fly and fight. I also think that the nose cannon damage is over valued in in the dogfight area. I'm most cases API 50cal was plenty of damage for dogfighting especially against the Japanese.

[@gort8203]

The P-39 did have a supercharger. Deletion of a second stage turbo-supercharger did not delete the shaft driven blower.

[@magoid]

I was about to point that out.

[@scotfield3950]

Outstanding!

[@gort8203]

Someone should explain how deleting the turbo, which was behind the CG, moved the CG aft.

[@richardwarner3705]

In the U.S., the Air Cobra was used in spectacular publicity shots firing all its mechine guns & nose cannon, to inspire American citizens.

[@MrEwok35]

Great vid!

[@JLSMaytham]

Small historical correction - the X1 was a design by Miles Aircraft in England, closed down by forcing the British Government to withdraw contracts so that it could be bought by the USA and the design stolen. It's not only their rockets that were not home grown.

[@JohannThorStefansson]

Awesome!

[@The_Plastic_Ape]

Very interesting doc on the P-39, I'm going to have to remember the RAF song, but i still don't like the door. :-)

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

There's a USAAF song about the P-39 tumbling.

[@user-lk2000]

amazing!

[@kirillgorovatski1492]

Correction : 01:15 the slang inside soviet Air Force marks P-39 not "cobrachka", but "Bellochka" (means: "Bell_the_cute" or "Bell_sweetie")... anyway: much RESPECT for the video!

[@williamzk9083]

The P-39 was used in the ETO during the Torch Landings and invasion of Italy. It was quite successful when engaging Axis aircraft below 15000ft including the Me 109G and often attacked bombers and fighters alike. Of course it could not escort heavy bombers.

[@Cuccos19]

That was actually called MTO - Mediterranean Theater of Operations - not the ETO.

[@williamzk9083]

@@Cuccos19 Nevertheless the aircraft was effective when used below 15000ft

[@Sacto1654]

What would have happened had the P-39 gotten the right turbocharged engine right from the start? I think it would have been very successful in USAAF service, particularly with its nearly 400 mph top speed even at altitude. And its ability to absorb a lot of punishment would have made it a potent ground attack plane, too.

[@joemueller-zt9hn]

I would argue that the p-39 didn't receive NACA's influence early enough. according to Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles the turbo was removed due to cost not NACA. NACA worked on the p-38 and p-47, both retained their turbos. either way it's a shame this great plane could never find it self in the right place at the right time. had the flying tigers flown p-39's, or had p-39's been on the scene at peal harbor, had it received the Merlin swap like the Mustang, I'd wager history would remember this plane differently.

[@dundomaroje9627]

P-39 was not failure in any means! It was excellent dogfighter. It just didn't meet requirements of American air force. Americans needed, at the time, long range fighters for escort missions, not aerial defence fighter.

[@danhubert-hx4ss]

At low altitude, yes.

[@gort8203]

It did meet not meet its original design specifications, but it did meet the immediate need of the USAAF, which is why it was put into production. The USAAF was growing rapidly from its pre war size and the Army desperately needed as many fighters as it could get. The P-39 was available, and it served an important role for the US in North Africa and the Pacific. Nobody else had long range fighters at that time. Classic single engine fighters were short range machines meant for the tactical battlefield rather than escort of long range strategic bombers. Those were added later, but the need for fighters over the battlefield never went away.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Sorry, but the P-39 was an unstable gun platform ( according to test pilots at Wright-Patterson ) near the stall region. That same instability was the source of the tumble and spin reputation, and landing accidents.

[@gort8203]

@@bobsakamanos4469 Maybe we should leave all the loaded and misleading terminology like "dogfight", "gun platform", and "instability" out of the discussion, and focus on reason the airplane was not a failure: The Russians had great success with the P-39 in air-to-air combat, achieving the highest score of the war for any U.S. built aircraft.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@gort8203 yes, let's look at actual results, but you cannot believe the Soviet claims at all. Look at the accident rates in the US P-39 training units were 3x higher than P-40 training units. If it was so good, why weren't they used in numbers in the MTO where bombers flew tactical missions at 12,000' and fighters didn't need long range or high altitude ability. As for Material Command and USAAF requirements, you can't just ignore those standards that Bell couldn't deliver, but of course Larry knew the secret handshake to get his contracts. Short answer, don't believe the Soviet propaganda where pilots were given financial reward for each claimed kill and the consequences for poor performance was draconian.

[@Cuccos19]

Interesting how the Allison never got a decent mechanical supercharger. Actually the turbosupercharger was a rare thing on WWII fighters - only the P-38 and P-47 had it what put into large scale use. All others had non turbo type superchargers and many of them worked great. Like the Merlin 60 and 70 series dual speed, dual stage mechanical superchargers or the DB series had hydro clutch type superchargers and also worked great. The US radials had decent mechanical superchargers too. So what went wrong with the Allison V-1710?

[@gort8203]

The Allison didn't get a 2 stage blower because the Army was betting on the Turbosupercharger, which promised to be superior but lagged in development. But it did get a 'decent' one later on, as installed in the P-63 and P-82. Maybe not quite as good as the one on the Packard V1650, but decent.

[@SmedleyDouwright]

USAF four engine bombers were also turbocharged. So turbos saw a lot of use , but not not in all fighters.

[@WAL_DC-6B]

"Hey Little Cobra don't you know you're going to shut them down!" ....... borrowing a line from "The Rid Chords'" 1960s song, "Hey Little Cobra."

[@mathewkelly9968]

Like it did ok in Pacific US/Aus/NZ service despite the reputation

[@edl617]

P-39 was not a failure In the very tightly planned XP-39, though, there was no internal space left over for the turbo. Using a drag-buildup scheme, a number of potential areas of drag reduction were found. NACA concluded that a top speed of 429 mph (690 km/h) could be realized with the aerodynamic improvements they had developed and an uprated V-1710 with only a single-stage, single-speed supercharger.

[@MisterOcclusion]

So the NACA lost the script? I thought the airforce was all about high altitude bombers by this point. One would think they’d like similar out of their pursuits

[@gort8203]

USAAF was hardly all about strategic bombardment, which had to compete with and often took a back seat to tactical employment of aircraft for much of the war. This is why the P-39 was produced even after it failed to meet it original performance specs. The USAAF was rapidly growing from a tiny pre-war air force and desperately needed large numbers of fighters. The P-39 was available and it went went to North Africa and the Pacific. It wasn't sent to England because unlike North Africa and the Pacific high altitude fighters were needed there.

[@gwaithwyr]

Pronouncing Kuban as if it were "Cuban" probably confuses some viewers. .Better to prounce it Koo-ban

[@bobsakamanos4469]

It was the perfect lend lease aircraft for the Soviets. Not acceptable as a dogfighting aircraft for the US according to Material Command test pilots due to poor roll-yaw stability near the stall, and excessively light stick forces during g manouvers, but good climb performance to its critical altitude below 15,000'.

[@IronWarhorsesFun]

isn't calling these two planes "fighters" kinda a misnomer? seeing how they mostly got used as attack aircraft?

[@WanderfalkeAT]

You climb in a Yak and you sit in something like a flying T-34 with rudimentiary instruments and you are lucky if the engine was serviced well so you won't crash. You get in a P-39 and you wonder at how could they f*ck up your living room that much, but at least you had a reliable radio to send your MayDay. You get in a Messer and wonder if you could ever scratch your ass inflight. You climb in a Focke Wulf 190 and you start to pitty everyone else! No question there were more agile and powerful fighters in WW-2, but as pilot...

[@MOTV88]

Makes a P-39 video, uses P-63 for thumbnail. P-63F-1-BE Kingcobra Last Military Serial: 43-11719 USAAF

[@abird6217]

huh? it does not have a P-63 in the thumbnail

[@utubejdaniel8888]

Point of order. The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was never called “Nakka” before the formation NASA. It was a highly regarded aeronautical research arm of the Federal Government. In all literature prior to July 1959 the initials of the organization were always, repeat always, preceded by “the” and the letters sounded out just like the USDA, the FBI, the CIA, etc. It has only been since the internet that uninformed persons have referred to the NACA as “Nakka”.

[@goodvibebeats4168]

I guess Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles are also uninformed then? Give me a break. When initials spell out a word that can be easily pronounced, it can be said as a word, the reason USDA, FBI and CIA aren't said like words is because it doesn't feel natural to say them as words. You're not right, you're just pretentious.

[@utubejdaniel8888]

@@goodvibebeats4168 Pretentious, perhaps, but I am right. I grow weary of the internet/gamer influence on aviation, and this is just another example. It is a kind of shibboleth, if I hear someone say "nakka" I know I am dealing with a philistine, just as when I hear someone say “Sue 27”. It is, and always has been an “S-you 27". Greg is the man on lots of things, but we disagree on NACA.

[@goodvibebeats4168]

​@@utubejdaniel8888 The idea that you would refer to someone as a philistine because of a perfectly reasonable pronunciation of an acronym is absurd. You are not right at all, you just have some arbitrary, unarticulated and unjustified view that acronyms can't be said out loud phonetically. I cannot stand unarticulated beliefs, you have no good reason why an acronym shouldn't be said phonetically, and thus your 'shibboleth' is pointless. From your comment, it's obvious that you are desperate to assert yourself as someone kind of older, wiser, authority, when you are neither. "Gamer" influence on aviation? What are you talking about? "Internet" influence? Utterly meaningless.

[@raydesmond6712]

'goodvibebeats' is correct, you have arbitrarily decided some 'rule' for no good reason. Many acronyms are said as if they were words, it is an established thing in the English language.

[@utubejdaniel8888]

@@raydesmond6712 Not really a "rule", more of a shibboleth in the aeronautics community.

[@doctor78212]

I like your video, however during the time period you are talking about there was no Soviet Union.

[@mathewkelly9968]

Im pretty sure the firepower is why it did so well in Soviet service , like they had better fighters in every catergory except firepower

[@slimygrimy-l7m]

The Cobra was a excellent stop gap well the Soviet Union got over there ugly Early war Airforce, and got better designs into service yak-9 ect ect ... And continued it's service alongside those later plans.. funny enough they didn't like the p47

[@XYZ-bi9eb]

wow, thanks for this brilliant video!

[@aviationdeepdive]

Glad you liked it!

[@JoelHouser-pv6iu]

Brewster Buffalo

[@johnharris6655]

Bf-109's became the first planes flown by the new Israeli Air Force in 1948

[@georgemcdonald3769]

Way too many P-63s to continue watching. 🥱

[@Hartley_Hare]

I'm sure you have terribly important things to do.

[@Konnik-h3g]

Всунули барахло а теперь сказки рассказывают ))