PDA

View Full Version : William R. Dunn, first American ace of WWII talks about the P-39



XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 04:49 AM
From page 116 of Fighter Pilot,the first american ace of WWII, by William R Dunn.

I thought this was funny:


"The 53rd Fighter Group was equipped at that time(June 1943) with Bell P-39 Airacobras, which had been nicknamed "the Allison time-bomb with a Curtiss Electric fuse". I certainly felt sorry for the poor SOBs that had to fly those damned things in combat against real fighter aircraft. With their tricycle landing gear,the p-39s' were just great for taxiing. The known bad habits of all aircraft were collected together and developed into the P-39s' flying characteristics: flat spins, tail plane(stabilizer)stalls, tumbling, to mention a few of the most dangerous. The allison engine was behind the pilot, which threw the CG(center of gravity) way off, and the propeller shaft ran between the pilot's legs to the three-bladed prop in front.
The Airacobra's engine ran rough most of the time, overheating all the time. There was always the worry that the prop shaft would seize, split apart, and castrate the unlucky pilot. If you got into a flat spin or tumble with the damned thing-and it was easily done if you weren't very careful-there was nothing to do but bail out of it.(My kid brother, who trained on P-39s in the class of 43G, bailed out of three of them-two flat spins and one tumble.) As an example, if you were practicing firing at a ground target and pulled up sharply after your pass, the tail plane would stall without warning and the rear end of the P-39 would fall out from under you with a frightening snap. If you were too low, there wasn't a chance of recovering-you went in with the kite. Trying to trim the Airacobra, even in level flight, was like sitting on the head of a pin, where you could fall off in any direction at any time.
In the beginning of the war the RAF, short of fighter aircraft, ordered 675 P-39s from the Bell Aircraft Corporation at Buffalo, New York. Their order was soon reduced to 80 aircraft because of mechanical problems and the Airacobra's failure in action against German fighters. It was a miserable kite to fly, and a lot of good guys busted their butts in the P-39. We should have set fire to them all; however, we gave them to the Russians. No wonder they're still mad at us."



Just read this book. I thought it was pretty good. And I got a hoot out of his page on the Airacobra. In the back of the book he goes over all the well known WWII planes, allied and axis. He flew in Korea and was in Vietnam, retiring in the early seventies. Anyone else read this book or hear about this guy?

Jumoschwanz

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 04:49 AM
From page 116 of Fighter Pilot,the first american ace of WWII, by William R Dunn.

I thought this was funny:


"The 53rd Fighter Group was equipped at that time(June 1943) with Bell P-39 Airacobras, which had been nicknamed "the Allison time-bomb with a Curtiss Electric fuse". I certainly felt sorry for the poor SOBs that had to fly those damned things in combat against real fighter aircraft. With their tricycle landing gear,the p-39s' were just great for taxiing. The known bad habits of all aircraft were collected together and developed into the P-39s' flying characteristics: flat spins, tail plane(stabilizer)stalls, tumbling, to mention a few of the most dangerous. The allison engine was behind the pilot, which threw the CG(center of gravity) way off, and the propeller shaft ran between the pilot's legs to the three-bladed prop in front.
The Airacobra's engine ran rough most of the time, overheating all the time. There was always the worry that the prop shaft would seize, split apart, and castrate the unlucky pilot. If you got into a flat spin or tumble with the damned thing-and it was easily done if you weren't very careful-there was nothing to do but bail out of it.(My kid brother, who trained on P-39s in the class of 43G, bailed out of three of them-two flat spins and one tumble.) As an example, if you were practicing firing at a ground target and pulled up sharply after your pass, the tail plane would stall without warning and the rear end of the P-39 would fall out from under you with a frightening snap. If you were too low, there wasn't a chance of recovering-you went in with the kite. Trying to trim the Airacobra, even in level flight, was like sitting on the head of a pin, where you could fall off in any direction at any time.
In the beginning of the war the RAF, short of fighter aircraft, ordered 675 P-39s from the Bell Aircraft Corporation at Buffalo, New York. Their order was soon reduced to 80 aircraft because of mechanical problems and the Airacobra's failure in action against German fighters. It was a miserable kite to fly, and a lot of good guys busted their butts in the P-39. We should have set fire to them all; however, we gave them to the Russians. No wonder they're still mad at us."



Just read this book. I thought it was pretty good. And I got a hoot out of his page on the Airacobra. In the back of the book he goes over all the well known WWII planes, allied and axis. He flew in Korea and was in Vietnam, retiring in the early seventies. Anyone else read this book or hear about this guy?

Jumoschwanz

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 05:05 AM
yeah, everything ive read also is very similar to that, and that is nothing like the p39 in FB1.0 or 1.1

but the p39 from il2 is alot more like all the pilot accounts, except you couldnt really tumble it

----------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 05:13 AM
It's funny how different countries approached airplanes. Russians and fins tossed out a lot of stuff in some of the US planes they got- armor etc. And were perfectly happy with the planes afterwards.

But the US and British pilots sort of did a whoaa now this thing is a pos and scrapped them,

Yet the russians hated the hurri. While the Brits loved their steady hunchback.


Anyone know what the russians thought of the 47? I havent really read anything about it but it would be interesing to read.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 07:21 AM
its the pilot, not the plane. keep yer chin up, and quit whinin.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 08:17 AM
The P39 always had a reputation as a flaming sack of dog $hit until IL2 came along.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 09:51 AM
Yikes!

Does anyone know the number to the P-39 "Damage Control Center"?

I think we have an emergency here.


Regards,

FW190fan
Commanding Officer, VJG/26 Screaming Luft-Chickens.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 01:16 PM
hmmm ...that really sounds nothing like the p-39 in fb1.1 and even 1.0 ...but i dont think oleg maddox created any fantasy aircraft that has nothing to do with reality... so i suppose the later p-39 versions (n,q) modelled in fb were much better than the early versions ordered by the brits (i think c and d)... but even if the later versions were better... the p-39 doesnt stall at all in 1.1 ...looks a bit overmodelled too me

<html>
<body>
http://home.arcor.de/f.zwintzscher/baz-logo.jpg
</body>

</html>

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 01:31 PM
Just goes to show subjective it all is. I bet a WWII pilot can be found to Praise/Ridicule just about evry plane of WWII.
That`s why this type of thing is so difficult to judge.
If the actual pilots can`t decide amongst themselves, who are we, the people who`ve never fought in war conditions in WWII aircraft to complain about tiny degrees of FMs? Even if the main majority of people get what they want- is it historically correct or just what we in our minds want to be correct?

Does a tree make a noise if it falls in the woods and noone`s around to hear?

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif



"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 01:31 PM
I "heard"" the p39 was used as groundattack fighter in russia but also as fighter but not often.

<img src=http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/falkster.gif alt="III/JG53" width="600"> (http://www.jagdgeschwader53.de)

ZG77_Nagual
08-16-2003, 01:31 PM
Even the brits said the 39 was a good dogfighter at low alt. It's like the p38 - you really had to learn how to fly it. Proof is in the flying however - and the vvs pilots proved the airacobra cnsistently in battle - no argument is possible there.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 02:19 PM
Hallo people!

I have the book "American warplanes of World WarII" from David Donald.

There you can read, that the P39d was "like a worldmaster on the paper but a failure in reality."
I try make a summary:
On 14.04.40 the brits have ordered 675 P39d's. They recogniced that the values of this productiontyp were more bad than the values of the first "naked" types. It was 53km/h slower (less than 600km/h) because of heigher weight than the values on the paper and the performance in higher altitudes decreased too much (the list of bad proberties were longer).
So the RAF decided after tests to go back from the p39. From the big Order 212 went to Sowjetunion, 54 were lost over sea and the USArmy took over 179 of them as P400.
The next versions P39d/e/f/k were mor little improvements but not decident developmentsteps.
The first real big order were 2095 P39n's. The most of them went to Sowjetunion for groundattack-missions.

Short and maybe helpfull.

Greats,
Motorsound

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 02:23 PM
SeaFireLIV wrote:
- Just goes to show subjective it all is. I bet a WWII
- pilot can be found to Praise/Ridicule just about
- evry plane of WWII.
- That`s why this type of thing is so difficult to
- judge.

true.... but if a pilot talks about tail stalls of his aircraft... then there must have been some i think... maybe they were not as bad as he described them... but at least the aircrafts tail has sometimes stalled... or flatspined or whatever... but in fb it doesnt anything like that.. in normal il2, p-39 sometimes flatspinned... at the moment it doesnt.

- If the actual pilots can`t decide amongst
- themselves, who are we, the people who`ve never
- fought in war conditions in WWII aircraft to
- complain about tiny degrees of FMs? Even if the main
- majority of people get what they want- is it
- historically correct or just what we in our minds
- want to be correct?

but whats the sence of this forum then? true... we didnt fly in WW2 condition... and im glad that well probably never have to do... but the only sence of this forum is exchanging opinions about things with other people... and i personally like it that way /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<html>
<body>
http://home.arcor.de/f.zwintzscher/baz-logo.jpg
</body>

</html>

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 02:30 PM
Did Dunn have any hours himself in the 39? I'd be interested to know if his knowledge is first hand or hearsay. I hope what we're getting here isn't based on his brother's experience--the guy lost THREE 39s by stalling and spinning and he blamed the AIRPLANE???

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 02:34 PM
IT was a good dogfighter at low alts (below 4k)... And the Russians even enlighted it more, removing the armor.. and mostly removing the wing gungs to lighten it..

Though it still had a fame of the nasty stalls.. once you stalled it it was hard to recover..

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 04:10 PM
Quax46 wrote:
- Did Dunn have any hours himself in the 39? I'd be
- interested to know if his knowledge is first hand or
- hearsay. I hope what we're getting here isn't based
- on his brother's experience--the guy lost THREE 39s
- by stalling and spinning and he blamed the
- AIRPLANE???
-
-

Gotta agree here. Also that thing about getting castrated by the prop shaft never happened, though it made some pilots uneasy at 1st.

IIRC Chuck yeager said it was good low altitude plane. I think the P39 had problems early on -like most planes, but it being so unconventional meant not everyone gave it a fair chance. I also think the Russians may have removed some unnecesary equipment to improve it's CG.
Does anyone know where we can read pilot reports from P39s that are still flying ???

http://laurenharman.tripod.com/halloween/images/photos/underdog.jpg


"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this earth." -Roberto Clemente

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 05:20 PM
I think that the Brits were right at disliking the Aircobras they were offered. They had to intercept bombers at altitudes greater than 3000m, over the sea, and the Cobras had problems with the compasses. The cobras were no good above 4000m, without the superchargers and stuff. also, we musst take into consideration the prejudice of pilots. instead of a plane with a normal canopy, you would receive something like a car with wings, engine to the BACK of the cockpit, lurking behind the pilot ready to break free of its mount in a dive and smash him! Or the propeller shaft, between your legs, endangering the most important part of the male`s body! yes, the plane required speed in order not to flatspin. the 37mm cannon had 15 rounds in the first series, aiming was not easy, and also, WEstern pilots had choice. Russians had the choice of taking the Cobras, learn to fight in them or die. They could also get Yaks made on the principle "The Front Needs!", but those Yaks were not very good for surviving when hit. The Cobra was good for fights up to 3000m, where it was better than its enemies. It had sufficient armor, in fact the russians tried removing some of the frontal armor(behind the propellerand under the armored glass, but those Cobras would easily flatspin, more easy than the unstripped ones. Yes flatspin was a problem, if the pilot was unalert.
Seems to me like the story of the Buffalo: allied pilots having to fight the Zero, didn`t know about it, thought they would have to fight some biplanes with shortsighted Japs, flew without desire and their main task was the invention and consumation of different mixtures based on Gin and Tonic. The finns flew passionately, knew they would fight for their homes with outnumbering russian planes, they learned how to fight and won.



"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king."

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 05:26 PM
Bear in mind that Dunn was a pilot with the original Eagle Squadron and flew Hurricanes and early Spits in combat; comparing the 'Cobra, particularly at second hand, to these a/c is not going to be flattering to the other a/c.

The P-39 was a radical departure from contemporary design, and Bell Aircraft had some production quality problems early on, coupled with some slick characters in the sales department The RAF bought the Aircobra based on the performance of the prototype equipped with a turbocharger and considerably lighter than the production model: it could do close to 400mph at 20 thousand feet. The Brits were less than impressed with the airplanes they got, and either passed them on to the Soviets or returned them to the US, which shipped them in a rush to the South Pacific to former P-40 units mixed in with P-39D&E models, without manuals or a lot of tech support from Bell. So, the 'Cobra got a bad rap in the Army Air Forces, while the Soviets were delighted with an aircraft that performed quite competitively below 4500m (15000 ft), and had radios, a working cockpit heater, and canopy glass that they could see through. Having bags of heavy firepower didn't hurt, either.

It did have its quirks; every airplane does. Spits and Hurris couldn't dive worth a dang, FWs had a sudden and vicious stall, 109s were notorious for poor ground handling, Japanese a/c were fragile and P-40s couldn't climb. Some pilots couldn't adjust to the aircrafts' weaknesses and weren't successful, others exploited their aircrafts' strengths and got their pictures in the newsreels.

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 05:36 PM
i myself have this book "Fighter Pilot" and at teh end he talks about all teh planes he had flown Spits, Hurris,P51 P47. he also talks of Me109s, Fw190s, and P39s these of which he had not flown personally.
Although this topic is about P39s, id like to show u what he said about the P47s which he flew a great deal during the war.
"Clean, the jug could take on a flock of Me.109s or FW.190s and hold its own, big as it was. it couldnt out-climb them, but it could stay with them in a tight turn, and it sure as hell could out-dive any of them. And the heavy firepower of its eight machine guns, using a combination of tracer, ball, and API (armor-piercing incendiary) ammunition, blew a goodly number of kraut kites out of the shy. I've already noted the strength of the Thunderbolt's firepower when i shot down an Me110; the fusillade of bullets literally shot the Hun aircraft to bits."

He goes on to say a few paragraphs later.
"She (p47) could survive in a heavy flak environment, where other fighter type aircraft with in-line engines were shot down."

so by hes description of the P47, it seems that it really was a fighter. In FB it still seems like the Jug is not represented to the fullest. the 8 50cals are still too weak, the roll rate is horrible and its Damage Model is not living up to the nickname of "The Cast Iron Beast" at all.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 05:44 PM
Well said, horseback! *claps*

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 07:25 PM
As a total noob I don't know that my opinon is worth that much......

I have been trying to track all the stuff on the forum regarding the P-39. I don't know why but the '39 is the plane for me. I know it has 'issues' and is not as easy to master a some others. However, I am positive about this kite - I'm not only learning it but also the game at the same time.

Here are some observations:

To my mind it handles well - in game I try and stick below 5k and I'm racking up kills. Different to online I know.

The cannon is a peach - I'm using the MG's untill I can get to 50 - 30 meters, If you can get 1 hit with it then most of the time you will knock out your target.

It has good visibilty - with my rookie SA it's very important

The engine doesn't seem to overheat to much

Recovering stalls is simple enough - but I've been testing for flatspins and I just can't recover them. But as long as you keep the speed up and if you are getting wing twitch just be really easy on the stick and get some good flow over the surfaces for a second or two then you are okay.

It may not be popular but I'm really enjoying learning it - and I making good progress. Historicly accurate or not is a big debate, but that applies to all the kites in this game. I have a good feeling that the '39 rewards patience and is a little gem.

D

I was to take responsability for the newcomer Erich Hartmann. I looked at him and thought: Oh my God, what are they sending us now? What a baby!

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 08:03 PM
Having read up on the subject of P-39's in Russian service I got a few impressions. One: the main reason the P-39's were so well respected by the Russians was because of the advanced instrumentation, radio, and oxygen system. One of the things totally left out of IL2 is the poor quality of Russian planes in general. They were largely made of wood; the instruments were primitive; most didn't have radios, armament was poor, and most had poor armor/survivability.

The consensus w/ American pilots is that the P-39 was crap. You can see that the bird was not suited to the roles Americans played in WWII. In Europe their dismal high altitude performance made them crap. In the Pacific where pilots could fly down n' dirty they were faced w/ Oscars who could outmaneuver them.

The 39 was perfectly suited to the Eastern front. When the Russians began to receive them you must remember what they were replacing. Lagg3's, yak 1's and even I-16's. Many of the newer AC suffered from debilitating quality control as they were hastily constructed; and lacked parts and equipment due to supply problems. So when the Russians began receiving Airocobras they were impressed by its modern systems, the reliability of its engine; and the power of its weapons.

One other thing one must keep in mind is that the Airocobra was constantly modified in field and at Bell's factory w/ input from Russian pilots. Armor and weapons were removed. Systems were retrofitted to accept Russian stocks like poor quality oil and oxygen masks. The Russians spent much more time w/ the Airocobra and had the experience to refine tactics as well as the Airocobra itself.

Perhaps the best evidence of the true quality of the plane is its success in the Eastern front; which is both considerable and irrefutable.




<center> http://www.4yourfuture.net/handshake.gif


"Altitude, speed, maneuver, fire!"-The "formula of Terror" of Aleksandr Pokryshkin, Three times awarded the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 10:09 PM
this is from wings of fame

The p-39 C was evaluated by the raf on 30 july 1941 with
a captured 109 Emil and a Spitfire mark Vb.

The p-39 was competitive against both fighters in speed and manoeuvrability at low altitude. The airacobra out-turned and out-dived the emil in every encounter.

But the mock dogfights were all conducted at 4572 m or lower

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 11:45 PM
In a recent article Corwin Meyer, a Grumman test pilot during WWII, explained that when American fighters were tested against a captured Japanese A6M2 Zero, the only one that could accelerate and climb faster than the Zero below 10,000 fts was the P-39D, which did far better than the P-51A, P-38F, Wildcat, and a little better than the Corsair (there was no Hellcat available for these tests, and the P-40's engine had problems before the test was over).

When the RAF tested the Airacobra I (P-400), the aircraft was found to be faster than the Spit below 3500 meters and could dive faster from any altitude, although the Spit could turn tighter at medium to high altitudes.

Considered like that, it's hard to believe the plane was so bad, I think it had a bad reputation mainly because it had an unusual design with the heavy gun, the side door, the engine behind the pilot and the tricycle landing gear ("Corky" Meyer even reported that some pilots complained that it was "disturbing" for them to have the propellers axis passing between their feet) and also because it wasn't easy to fly and, in particular, had a dangerous behaviour in spins (the soviets produced and distributed to the units a film named "The spin on the Airacobra aircraft" which explained pilots how to get out of such a situation).

That's also the reason why so many Western sources told, without any reliable source, about the soviet using the P-39 for ground attack or bomber intercept rather than air superority, they didn't want to believe them when they said it was a really efficient fighter while, in fact, they saw intensive use as fighters and units like the 16 GvIAP (the one of Pokrishkin, Rechkalov, Klubov,...), the 9 GvIAP (of Alelyukhin, Amet-Khan, Golovachev,...), or the 29 GvIAP (of Gulaev) were very succesful with this fighter.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 05:49 AM
Right

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 05:51 PM
In his autobiography, Chuck Yeager writes:

"There were three squadrons in our fighter group, and among all those pilots, I was one of the few who loved the Thirty-Nine and would have gladly flown it off to war. The British refused it, and so did our own Air Corps, except for instruction, so we gave P-39s to the Russians to fight in. Our guys even sang a song about it:

Don't give me a P-39
With an engine that's mounted behind.
It will tumble and roll
And dig a big hole-
Don't give me a P-39.

Well, it was true that the drive shaft ran right up the center of the cramped cockpit, that the airplane performed beautifully at low altitudes, but was underpowered up high, and that if you stalled it, you might wind up boring a deep hole because it spun like a top going down. But once you had a feel for the ship and understood it, the Thirty-Nine was a fun airplane to fly."

Later on he describes meeting his Soviet counterparts during the Cold War:

"I never did get to ride in any of their military airplanes, but Tupolev and Mikoyan staged a dinner in my honor, and many of their top pilots and brass attended. Pilot talk is pilot talk the world over, and a lot of those guys had flown against the Germans in World War II, using our lend-lease airplanes. We had given them the good ol' P-39, the airplane I had trained in, and which, alone in our squadron, I had really enjoyed. So, we swapped P-39 stories, and they were delighted that I had flown hundreds of hours in an airplane they loved. They sure as hell didn't think we had sent them a dog."

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 07:07 PM
Mr.Krunchie wrote:
- Anyone know what the russians thought of the 47? I
- havent really read anything about it but it would be
- interesing to read.

Somewhere I read (don't recall where), that the Russians didn't like the P-47. Main reasons were lack of cannons and poor low-alt manouverability.

The Yanks seem to be the only ones sold on six or eight .50 cals vs. cannons.

The Brits didn't like it a first either, I remember reading somewhere that pilots joked that they could loosen their harnesses and jump around in the cockpit to dodge bullets. Also they joked that one could break a leg climbing into the cockpit, again because it was so large.



Quax46 wrote:
- the guy lost THREE 39s by stalling and spinning and he
- blamed the AIRPLANE???

I read another pilot's account somewhere that stated that AAC pilots would find any reason to ditch their P-39's. The more of those a/c they lost, the sooner they would be replaced with other types. If the plane had a bad reputation, a pilot could ditch several of them and blame it on stalls and spins, and there would be no questions asked.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 08:06 PM
hello

first off people, you have to realise...everything is RELATIVE to each other!

put it like this.... do you OWN a plane? probably not....so if someone gave you a P-39 how would you feel? (proly like a king!, i would)....

i would be so damn proud of that P-39.

until i flew something BETTER...

some of you people blame the pilot for its horrible atributes... "flat spin 3 tims" and the like

you do have some ground to stand on..but not much.

if you always say "its the plane not the pilot"

then you have obviously never owned a YUGO! or DAIHATSU..

would you pick a DAIHATSU over a FORD, HONDA, MCLAREN? if you had the choice..... be real. every aircraft has somthing it does best.. its just the P-39s "BEST" wasnt that great... unless YOU HAD NOTHING. THEN IT WAS BEAUTIFUL

nuff said

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 08:14 PM
I don't want the castrating shaft modeled in P-39's DM!

Ooops!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif



- Dux Corvan -

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 08:29 PM
just imagine: the Me109 shoots the P-39 in the engine area and a second later the Cobra pilot goes over the radio like Justin Timberlake in "Cry me a river"(cant think of another example)
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king."

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 10:40 PM
MICROWAVED CD



I agree with you, but I bet you MEANT "Its the pilot, not the plane" that makes it great...not vice versa. lol..can see the arguments from being mis-understood all poppin up.


later...

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 10:44 PM
Chuck Yeager loved the P-39

when later he came to russia, he met veteran pilot like him and they talk about their common experience of the P-39 and he was pleased to talk to people who also loved that plane

Nikko

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 12:20 AM
~S!~

Here is a link from a previous thread back a weeks ago.

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zbplo

Good reading about the P-39.

And this one is from Mudovers.com

http://mudmovers.com/articles/P39.htm


Falcon

<center>http://777AVG.com/sigs/sig07.gif </center>