View Full Version : P-39D1, D2, N1, Q1, Q10, P400

06-25-2009, 07:56 PM
#1 Which version do you prefer and why?
#2 Which combo of guns is best suited for turning engagements.
#3 Which combo of guns is best for diving/climbing engagements.

I understand the huge difference between the 20mm cannon, the 37mm and so on, but what is the difference between the default Cannons available to the P-39 and it's varients, versus the nose mounted optional cannon for some versions.

If you select this optional cannon, which weapon does it replace, and what is the difference in ammo. If you find one p-39 to be superior in close in dog fights between 100-200 meters, which one would it be?

And last, i didn't include the P-63 because i only wanted to compare the versions with lower power, or those equiped with allison engines with no more then 1200-1400hp.

06-25-2009, 08:04 PM

06-25-2009, 08:16 PM
The D2 is the most overmodeled of the bunch.

Around 20mph faster than it should be at most altitudes.

06-25-2009, 08:22 PM
They are all somewhat similar. The D-2 is an aberration with far more engine horsepower than the other models. Its faster and more capable than even the Q-10.

All of the 37mm equipped models use the same cannon to my knowledge so I'm not sure what your question is.

The earlier models were meant for RAF service and had the Hispano 20mm fitted instead. Some of these were re-purposed for USAAF and VVS operations.

At low altitudes during the 1942 to 1943 realm the P-39 in any variation is quite effective. Especially on the Eastern Front where its agility is very good versus the opposition. At high altitudes its a dog and its agility is not enough against Japanese types. So on the East Front the P-39 is something of a turn fighter while in the Pacific it has to be flown as a boom and zoom type.

06-25-2009, 08:51 PM
I favor the D-2 with the 37 mm cannon. I try to squeeze one round out at a time to conserve the 30 rounds. I find it hard to guage lead distance for this huge round so I try to use them when leading is minimal. Usually one hit with the cannon will put anything down.

06-26-2009, 03:36 AM
I prefer the P-39's that are either in an inverted flat spin or just blew up because of cannon fire. This are about the only realistic aspects of that planes flight model. They are all clown wagons, in particular the D2. But even the moderate P-400 manages outrun and outturn the 109E, compensating 42% extra weight and 23% extra wing area with 9% extra power. Likewise, the P-39Q10 outruns and outturns the 109G-2, while carrying 28% extra weight, 24% extra wing area at, *drummroll*, 10% LESS power.

The whole family of planes it just an offense to physics. Except for when they blow up.

That said, I pick the 20mm cannon over the 37mm if I have a choice. The optional 37mm gun and the 37mm standard gun are the same. The 37mm replaces the 20mm gun.

06-26-2009, 11:40 PM
I like the P-63. It will out turn anything that can catch it, and run away anything that can out turn it. Amazing aircraft. I dont agree at all with the D-2 being called the clown wagon. It takes a lot of skill to fly it in combat without it stalling, and to hit with the 37MM.

06-27-2009, 09:37 AM
Spot on Gibbage.

My only problem with the D2 is it's overly optimistic top speed, it's simply too fast.

06-27-2009, 10:07 AM
P-39D2 , isn't this the one with the 1600hp engine compared to 1150hp for P-400's ?

I just made some quick tests in qmb crimea , i noticed the P-39Q10 is outaccelerated and outclimbed by the 109G2 , but since 109G2 seems more draggy and has a worse aerodynamical profile , it bleeds speed much quicker in turns and is behind in top speed if you stay in level flight at full power for some time . The combat speed of both a/c seem comparable

I also noticed that P-39D2 isn't much faster than P-39N , unless you are perfectly trimmed and stay in level flight with full power rad closed for a long time , P-39N feels more responsive

What struck me was that P-39D2 turns badly , rolls slowly and doesn't climb well , all P-39 catch fire like nothing , not to mention the flat spin tendency particularly annoying with the D2 once you get under 200mph ,i felt its strong points were its powerful armament and excellent ability to keep energy during manoeuvers, but all in all , this is not the kind of plane i would recommend to begginners (the gunnery with the 37mm needs practicing as well ) nor consider overmodelled , but perhaps i'm wrong

Anyhow , this plane was individually the highest scorer of all allied fighters and produced many aces , I also read that Chuck Yeager who flown many types of planes said after the war that despite all its shortcomings the Airacobra was the plane he enjoyed flying the most , so in real life it was probably a decent plane in the right hands although it lacked high altitude supercharger along some other vices that made it unsuitable for the Pacific theater

07-05-2009, 06:35 PM
the -39 is a very streamlined looking plane as well, anyone have drag figures on this plane?

07-05-2009, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Saburo_0:
the -39 is a very streamlined looking plane as well, anyone have drag figures on this plane?

In reality the streamlining was a problem with the p39. As the story goes, it was designed with turbosupercharging for high altitude performance but the USAAC ordered it removed to improve streamlining (on the basis that US had no need for high altitude interceptors) resulting in the plane being a bit of a dog at altitude.

07-05-2009, 09:02 PM
The P-39 was affectionately called the Iron dog for a reason.

07-06-2009, 12:22 AM
When the Russians started getting P-39's they worked with Bell to get many changes made to the structure.
Result is that models later than D should have stronger DM and since it was Oleg who posted about those
changes I would be very surprised to not see that reflected in IL2.

The D-2 is not a "Russian-influenced" P-39, hence the factory-numbers FM?

07-06-2009, 12:36 AM
I think that the P-39Q10 could easily be the best of the bunch regarding performance, it has 4 blade prop and wing MG's removed.
That must help climb, turn rate, energy during maneuvers...
But at the same time, we cannot really jump into that plane and expect a good performance.
Sure we can have the feeling for flying, but gunnery isn't exactly easy.

07-06-2009, 05:35 AM
The N1 was first plane I flew in IL2 so I have a soft spot for it.

07-06-2009, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Saburo_0:
the -39 is a very streamlined looking plane as well, anyone have drag figures on this plane?


07-06-2009, 04:15 PM

07-06-2009, 04:56 PM

Just for you, EL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

07-06-2009, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Saburo_0:
the -39 is a very streamlined looking plane as well, anyone have drag figures on this plane?

http://blogs.menupages.com/sanfrancisco/brick.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Every F-4 Phantom pilot I spoke to said that's what an F-4 flew like ...a brick...a very fast brick!