Sorry, but perhaps I didn’t understand the point of your comment, Hgilley. You are asking why German fighters simply don’t stay at high altitude?
If this is the question, I suppose that without radar, searching for low-speed Il-2 with a good camouflage uge and low-level flying pattern (as someone has already remarked, russian Jabo pilots flow at hazardous low level) it’s not so easy for Germans flying at 10000 meters to see soviet airplanes before they attack nazi units.
That, at least for me, makes the statement from Valeriy Romanenko reasonable.
Not that I am any sort of aviation expert but, when it came to fighter planes, the ability to fly at low altitudes and relatively slowly may, in some circumstances, be an advantage. Diving or not, the Germans had, in the end of the day, to engage the Aircobras and Il-2s at their altitude of choice. This could cause them problems. In many instances, it would have been necessary for the German fighters to fly at such speeds that they would either overshoot their targets or stall. “Quality” fighters such as the MeBf109 and the FW190 are known to have had problems of this sort even against the rickety old PO-2 “crop duster” light bombers. There is an outstanding point - Soviet pilots who flew them tended to be very loyal to the Aircobra and Kingcobra. Best regards, JR.
I would add that the Soviet Red Air Force was a flying hodgepodge of different designs both indigenous and foreign sourced. Some of the later generation of Soviet fighters were excellent and quiet comparable to the Luftwaffe (or Western Allied) fighters at all levels. The Air/Supercobras were just one cog in the machine that was the increasingly effective Red Air Force…
I’ve read of evaluations by the W. Powers of late model Soviet Aircraft conducted at the end or shortly after the War.
These eval’s found that the later Red fighters “…were at least the equal of, and in many cases superior to, their Western counterparts.”
Not just stay at high altitude, but “bounce” (make a diving firing pass and then convert the diving speed back to altitude). This was the basic combat tactic in WWII. If the P-39s couldn’t match the Germans at the higher altitudes then they were doomed to playing defense (getting bounced) with no chance to return fire. And the Germans seldom flew at 10,000 meters (33,000’) since that was the ceiling of the FW190 and very near the ceiling of the 109.
This was the biggest complaint of P-39 pilots in the Pacific in 1942, with a drop tank and the extra weight of the American P-39s (as compared to their lighter Russian versions) they had trouble climbing over 18,000’. The lighter Japanese planes could cruise higher and bounce the P-39s. A lighter Russian P-39 (even with a drop tank, which they seldom used) had no trouble climbing to 23,000’. Then when they sighted the Japanese they could drop the tank and climb on up to 30,000’ if needed. A (lighter) Russian P-39 was on par with the best fighters in the world in '42-'43.
The service ceiling of the FW190 is over 11,000m according to Wiki. And Russian sources state that combat rarely took place above 5,000m as stated. I’m no expert on the Eastern air war, nor any air war, but from what I have read the Luftwaffe was heavily outnumbered and struggled to protect their tactical aircraft that were twin engined (at best) and carried limited bomb loads and were also desperately trying to prevent strikes on their own ground forces…
Let’s not argue, Wm. Greens’s book “Warplanes of the Luftwaffe” lists the FW190 as having a service ceiling of 33,000’, almost exactly 10,000 meters. Very few planes eve reached their service ceiling anyway. Their practical ceiling is that altitude at which their rate of climb is 1,000 feet per minute (fpm). A WWII fighter’s rate of climb declined steadily as altitude increased. In other words, the higher you climbed, the harder it got. Climbing at less than 1000fpm, with that rate declining with every foot that you climbed, meant that your plane began to handle sluggishly. Couple that with full power for an extended period to climb slower and slower was not conducive to a long life in combat. Your plane would reach it’s service ceiling under controlled test conditions, but was to risky in combat and too hard on your engine.
True, but 4 of the top 5 Russian aces (actually allied aces, since their scores approached 60 victories and no American or British ace had near that many) flew the P-39 for the majority of their victories. The Russians demanded this plane over all other lend lease fighters (including the Spitfire). Considering that they received a little less than 5,000 Airacobras vs. 30,000 Yaks and many many other Laggs and Migs would lead one to believe the Cobra was their favorite plane.
an interesting fact the prototype P39 was the fastest and best performing of all the P39’s. it didn’t have any armour or guns which saved atleast 1000 lbs this is the only aircraft I have come across that performed best in prototype form
another interesting fact the M61 was based on the M39 cannon which had the Gatling feed mechanism but firing through one barrel which presented heating problems. so they added 5 more barrels which took care of the cooling problem and allowed more rapid fire 3000 to 4500 rpm. the F 104 was the first production fighter to use the Vulcan. in one of the prototypes they fired the Vulcan at supersonic speed. the first test fire went great but the second blew up the gun almost destroying the plane. they tried again after repairs were made the first shot again. went fine the second destroyed the gun again and the engine with it. this time the plane was destroyed
The prototype P-39 had a turbo. Bad installation, would never have been practical. Deleting the turbo allowed Bell to get the P-39 in production and in the field in time for the start of WWII. Reducing the weight (Russians) restored most of the performance lost from deleting the turbo. Full performance and more was available from a mechanical second stage supercharger put in the P-63, but too late for all but the end of WWII. That mechanical second stage could have easily been installed in the P-39 beginning in April 1943, but sadly the Army chose not to. With the weight reduction that P-39 would have rivaled the Merlin Mustangs and been available nine months before.
The P-39 have had a supercharged engine, as every other ww2 combat aircraft. The M4 cannon was a lousy anti-tank weapon, because of it’s low muzzle velocity. But it was a good tool to kill a sturdy German bomber due to it’s heavy shell. The P-39s were, in VVS, an outfit of fighter units, not bomber or attack units: Soviet pilots would be ill advised to go tank hunting with P-39.
Both the P-51 and P-39 were designed for same mission - fighter/interceptor. The XP-39 never came close to 390, let alone 400 mph mark, due to the apalling drag, a result of draggy collers and turbo installation, too high a canopy and a big wing. The intercooler installation was inviting to the boundary layer, and could not be adjusted for different power levels. Agreed with H.G. - deletion of the turbo enabled to the USAF to actually have Bell producing useful fighters when it mattered.
The 1st Merlin Mustags were produced in early summer of 1943, so that is not a 9 month difference. The installation of two-stage V-1710 would increased CoG issues of the regular P-39s.
In case we really want the two-stage V-1710 early, the Mustang and P-40 should be far less compicated platforms, while offering a better fuel tankage?
added, re. single stage German engines: the Allison have had 1710 cu in, the Db-605 was at 2176 cu in, the BMW-801 was at ~2600 cu in. No wonder that a single stage V-1710 was in disadvantage here.
The P-39 was the most successful U.S. fighter of the war, Army or Navy. It shot down well over 4,000 axis enemies during the war. The Soviets used the P-63 until after the Korean war (a number of Kingcobra’'s were destroyed by 2 F-80’s on a Russian airfield near Vladivostok in 1951).
P-63’s were still in French service until at least 1962.
Furthermore the US refused to send any Armor Penetrating ammo to the Russians.
Even looking at just when piloted by US pilots, Army, Navy, & Marine Corps, when you count credits in all theaters, the P-51 types and F6F dash whatevers exceeded your P-39 total. With USAAF drivers only, the P-39 came in 9th when you start counting credits. And, yes, I am aware you’re counting credits in Soviet or other’s service . . . still comes in lower than the P-51 and F6F
. . . besides the P-39 was not carrier capable 
Type = in air-to-air credits = place
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 5,944 = 1st Place
F6F = 5,229 = 2nd Place
P-38 = 3,785 = 3rd Place
P-47 = 3,662 = 4th Place
F4U = 2,155 = 5th Place
P-40 = 1,994 = 6th Place
F4F/FM-2 = 1,436 = 7th Place
Spitfire = 379 = 8th Place
P-39/P-400 = 321 = 9th Place
P-61 = 128 = 10th Place
Beaufighter = 31 = 11th Place
PV = 20 = 12th Place
F2A = 10 = 13th Place
P-43 = 6 = 14th Place
P-36 = 3 = 15th Place
P-26 = 2 = 16th Place tied
P-70 = 2 = 16th Place tied
P-35 = 1 = 17th Place tied
Mosquito = 1 = 17th Place tied
A decent article:
America’s Worst World War II Fighter Was the Star of the Russian Air Force
Sebastien Roblin
September 3, 2017
TweetShareShare
Printer-friendly version
The P-39 Airacobra may be the least loved American fighter plane of World War II, deemed inadequate by military planners at the outset of hostilities and written off as nearly useless by many historians. Certainly, the P-39 could not match the high-altitude performance of classic American warbirds such as the dapper and agile P-51 Mustang, nor the hard-charging, hard-hitting P-47 Thunderbolt.
And yet it was pilots of the Airacobra, not the Thunderbolt or Mustang, that achieved the highest scores of any aviators flying an American war plane during World War II. That this fact is not better known maybe because those Airacobra pilots flew with red Soviet stars on their wings.
Founded in 1935, the Bell Aircraft Corporation was known for unconventional designs such as the Airacuda bomber-destroyer which would have been at home on the cover of a science fiction magazine. In 1939, Bell approached the designs of its prototype XP-39 single-engine interceptor from a revolutionary perspective: instead of designing guns to fit the airplane, Bell designed a plane to fit around its gun—an enormous Oldsmobile T9 37-millimeter automatic cannon shooting throw the propeller hub. This had a caliber commonly found on early World War II tank guns. It would only take a single direct hit to down an enemy airplane, and the P-39 also carried two additional .50 caliber machine guns in the nose and four .30 caliber weapons in the wings for a good measure.
To make room for the nose-mounted cannon and thirty rounds of ammunition, the P-39’s Allison 12-cylinder V-1710 inline engine was mounted behind the cockpit—you can even see the exhaust just below the rear canopy—with the propeller shaft passing between the pilot’s legs. The design was also the first single-seat fighter to boast a third extending landing gear under the nose in addition to one on each side of the fuselage in a more stable “tricycle” configuration which is now standard. A raised bubble canopy that opened from a side door offered the pilot excellent visibility, and self-sealing fuel tanks and around 200 pounds of armor plating added to initial P-39D production models improved the Airacobra’s survivability.
The XP-39 prototype exhibited a very decent top speed of 380 miles per hour in 1938. However, the Army Air Corps demanded that Bell increase speed even further by trimming away drag-producing elements. Ultimately, the designers settled on eliminating the Airacobra’s turbo-charger air scoop under the fuselage to deal with the drag problem.
This decision proved fatal to the Airacobra’s prospects as a frontline fighter, as aircraft without the turbochargers handled like a brick above altitudes over 15,000 feet. In a few years, the U.S. bombers would sally forth on raids against Nazi Germany conducted at altitudes of 25,000 feet, and German fighters would climb even higher to ambush them. Furthermore, the Airacobra’s slow climb rate made it terrible at its original role of intercepting high flying enemy bombers. The P-39 centrally-mounted engine also pushed the center of gravity to the rear, making it prone to vicious spins once cannon ammunition was expended from the nose. Though the P-39 was not generally disliked by its pilots, it would also never have its own pilot’s association, unlike the four other major fighter types of the Army Air Corps.
Prior to the U.S. entry in World War II, the United Kingdom received more than 200 export-model Airacobras known as P-400s, which were downgraded to a 20-millimeter cannon in the propeller hub. But Royal Air Force pilots had fought many high-altitude battles with the Luftwaffe, and hated the Airacobra. Only 601 Squadron operated the Airacobra, flying the American fighters on a single combat mission before the type was withdrawn from British service. When the first two U.S. Army Air Force fighter groups arrived in England in the summer of 1942, the RAF persuaded the Americans to leave their P-39s behind and use British Spitfires Mark Vs instead!
A few P-39 Army Air Force squadrons did eventually see action in North Africa and Italy. There, they rendered decent service largely in a ground attack role capitalizing on their hefty firepower and good low-altitude handling providing air support for the Allied force in North Africa and Italy, and amphibious landing at Anzio and Southern France. However, the Airacobra’s initial entry into action proved inauspicious as nearly a score of fighters of the 350th and 81st Fighter Group went off course while transiting from England to Morocco and made forced landings in Portugal. The Portuguese duly confiscated the planes for their own air force, though they were so courteous as to pay the U.S. government $20,000 for each airplane!