Bailing Out of a P-39
Stephen Harding
features was automobile type doors on both sides of cockpit
that even allowed the window to roll down.
But bailing out of such a setup would seem to be difficult.
How does one open a door into the air stream when it is time to
make a hasty departure?
I presume there was some sort of hinge release mechanism to
completely disengage the door from the cockpit frame and allow
rapid egress.
Does anyone know what the proceedure was for bailing out, and
if the P-39 was considered an easy or difficult aircraft to
bail out of?
SMH
Gordon
>Does anyone know what the proceedure was for bailing out, and
>if the P-39 was considered an easy or difficult aircraft to
>bail out of?
>
At the American Fighter Aces Association reunion in San Antonio this past
weekend, found two different discussions going on about the P-39. Both of
which centered on the topic of how difficult it was to fly in the conditions of
the South West Pacific. The old "I heard it but never saw it" comments
concerning its supposed ability to tumble end over end were discussed and it
turned out that three of the 60+ aces in attendance had flown it in combat, all
in a ground attack role. None of them had the opportunity to bail out --
however two of them stated they had to 'belly one in' after combat damage.
One of the Cactus Air Force guys walked into the conversation, heard it was
about the P-39, shook his head disgusted, and walked away. The one direct
comment I can quote is that someone said, "But if you really wanted a one-way
trip, you'd send the Buffalos along as escort!" That brought an appropriate
round of snorts.
If you are really interested in the P-39, I'll see if I can find out who the
pilots were from the other guys I was standing with.
v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew
"Senso, got anything on your radar?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."
Darcey
emergency door latches on the right hand door and usually giving a
slight shove to kick the door away. Then rolling through the opening
onto the wing then falling away in the slipstream hoping you wouldn't
strick the tail surfaces. If you are really interested in what flying
combat in a P-39 might have been like I suggest you purchase 'Edwards
Parks book Nanette, published by W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. New York.
I believe the book is still available through either Zenith or Aviation
History.
The difficulty of bailing out of the P-39 was most likely relative to
the (flight) attidtude of the airplane at the time of departure but from
what I understand was not really too difficult - but then I have never
flown a P-39. Those accounts I have read of pilots leaving a disabled
P-39 did not suggest any great difficulty.
For some further insight, while the airplane had a door on each side, it
was essentially a right hand entry airplane because of the throttle that
protruded somewhat into the door space and in the case of an emergency
departure could snag a parachute harness or article of clothing
preventing a successful bail out.
Cheers, Ron
Stephen Harding wrote:
> I was just reading about the Bell P-39 Airacobra. One of its
> features was automobile type doors on both sides of cockpit
> that even allowed the window to roll down.
>
> But bailing out of such a setup would seem to be difficult.
> How does one open a door into the air stream when it is time to
> make a hasty departure?
>
> I presume there was some sort of hinge release mechanism to
> completely disengage the door from the cockpit frame and allow
> rapid egress.
>
> Does anyone know what the proceedure was for bailing out, and
> if the P-39 was considered an easy or difficult aircraft to
> bail out of?
>
> SMH
Stephen Harding
> One of the Cactus Air Force guys walked into the conversation, heard it was
> about the P-39, shook his head disgusted, and walked away. The one direct
> comment I can quote is that someone said, "But if you really wanted a one-way
> trip, you'd send the Buffalos along as escort!" That brought an appropriate
> round of snorts.
Oh the poor Iron Dog!
I do recall in Sakai's book, how he chased a phenomenal P-39 pilot over the
mountains of New Guinea, only to have it eventally crash into a mountain
side, so (as always) a good pilot could make it perform.
> If you are really interested in the P-39, I'll see if I can find out who the
> pilots were from the other guys I was standing with.
Well just curiousity, since the cockpit setup was so unique, no need to work at
an answer. I haven't seen this addressed in any of the web pages I've visited
yet. How did pilots get that door open? There just *had* to be a door release
mechanism, since opening the door or going out through the window don't seem
viable options.
Probably need to get a hold of some Russkies for a really definitive answer,
since they likely had the most combat experience with the plane. I believe
over half of P-39 production went to SU and a sizeable number of American P-39s
were stateside for training purposes only.
Thanks much.
SMH
Stephen Harding
> strick the tail surfaces. If you are really interested in what flying
> combat in a P-39 might have been like I suggest you purchase 'Edwards
> Parks book Nanette, published by W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. New York.
> I believe the book is still available through either Zenith or Aviation
> History.
Yeah actually I am interested. Sort of rooting for the underdog, as if I
could change WWII history.
Anyway, my local library has "Nanette", so I'll check it out.
Thanks much for the info!
SMH
FlyinFin
combat in a P-39 might have been like<
Fin
Darcey wrote:
>
> Greetings Stephen: Bailing out of the P-39 required releasing the
> emergency door latches on the right hand door and usually giving a
> slight shove to kick the door away. Then rolling through the opening
> onto the wing then falling away in the slipstream hoping you wouldn't
> strick the tail surfaces. If you are really interested in what flying
> combat in a P-39 might have been like I suggest you purchase 'Edwards
> Parks book Nanette, published by W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. New York.
> I believe the book is still available through either Zenith or Aviation
> History.
>
C.C. Jordan
>For some further insight, while the airplane had a door on each side, it
>was essentially a right hand entry airplane because of the throttle that
>protruded somewhat into the door space and in the case of an emergency
>departure could snag a parachute harness or article of clothing
>preventing a successful bail out.
The P-39 pilot would also have to be careful of the radiator shutter
lever located on the right side as well. It was not uncommon for a
mechanic or crewchief to snag his uniform on that lever getting in or out.
The preferred method of getting out of the P-39/P-400 was to exit
over the leading edge of the wing. The front edge of the cockpit door
lines up rather well with the leading edge of the wing. The pilot would
jettison the door, crawl out on the wing and pull himself over the leading
edge. This promises that the pilots will not contact the horizontal stab
on the way past. The second method was to lie flat on the wing (grasping
the leading edge) and slide off. Because the cockpit was very far forward
in relation to the wing, the pilot did not have the option of simply diving out
between the trailing edge of the wing and the horizontal tail surfaces as did
those who flew more conventional fighters.
Naturally, any method was dependent upon the atitude of the aircraft
and assumes that it is not gyrating in some manner.
It seems that bailing out of a P-39 for virtually any reason became very common
in the SWPA. Pilots were actively trying to speed up the retirement of the
P-39/P-400. One way they believed they could accomplish this was to dump
the planes in the sea for the any reason whatsoever. More than a few were
abandoned for this reason. The 35th Fighter Squadron had become so expert
at "retiring" Airacobra's that several pilots were transferred to P-38 squadrons
to reduce operational losses.
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
The Planes and Pilots of WWII Internet Magazine
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.cradleofaviation.org - Cradle of Aviation Museum
Darcey
C.C. Jordan wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 10:40:59 -0700, Darcey <dar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >For some further insight, while the airplane had a door on each side, it
> >was essentially a right hand entry airplane because of the throttle that
> >protruded somewhat into the door space and in the case of an emergency
> >departure could snag a parachute harness or article of clothing
> >preventing a successful bail out.
> The P-39 pilot would also have to be careful of the radiator shutter
> lever located on the right side as well. It was not uncommon for a
> mechanic or crewchief to snag his uniform on that lever getting in or out.
The emergency door release was located on the right door only just below the top
door hinge. To jettison the door this lever was simply pulled to the rear to
release the door. The emergency door release was also the method used to remove the
door during maintenance. The pilots Flight Operating Instructions Manual recommends
emergency exits as follows: Trim airplane nose heavy and turn ignition and battery
switches off. Pull emergency release handle and push out on door. (Right-hand door
recommended as it provides no obstruction.) As far as the coolant shutter control
(handle) is concerned this lever was positioned on the floor well below the seat and
would not in any way become an obstruction. While one might snag an article of
clothing during maintenance, it is very unlikely it would provide a problem during
bail out.
> The preferred method of getting out of the P-39/P-400 was to exit
> over the leading edge of the wing. The front edge of the cockpit door
> lines up rather well with the leading edge of the wing. The pilot would
> jettison the door, crawl out on the wing and pull himself over the leading
> edge. This promises that the pilots will not contact the horizontal stab
> on the way past. The second method was to lie flat on the wing (grasping
> the leading edge) and slide off. Because the cockpit was very far forward
> in relation to the wing, the pilot did not have the option of simply diving out
> between the trailing edge of the wing and the horizontal tail surfaces as did
> those who flew more conventional fighters.
>
Any attempt to try and drag oneself over the leading edge of the wing of a disabled
P-39 would be folly and certainly an impossibility. When you leave an airplane you
are not only working against the slipstream but also concentrating on getting the
hell out of the thing and your thoughts are on altitude and the D-ring on the chute.
Just dive for the wing and slide off. I have made many jumps from the right side of
a Cessna 182 and the procedure is to step out onto the step (located on the right
wing strut) with your left foot, stand on the wheel (after confirming with the pilot
the parking brakes are set) all the while holding onto the wing strut after which
you push off to the rear. This all taking place while the airplane is decelerated
to around 80 mph because the slipstream would prevent any of this taking place at
greater speeds.
> Naturally, any method was dependent upon the atitude of the aircraft
> and assumes that it is not gyrating in some manner.
>
> It seems that bailing out of a P-39 for virtually any reason became very common
> in the SWPA. Pilots were actively trying to speed up the retirement of the
> P-39/P-400. One way they believed they could accomplish this was to dump
> the planes in the sea for the any reason whatsoever. More than a few were
> abandoned for this reason. The 35th Fighter Squadron had become so expert
> at "retiring" Airacobra's that several pilots were transferred to P-38 squadrons
> to reduce operational losses.
>
With respect to pilots abandoning P-39s or P-400 in the way you suggest certainly
does not confirm anything I have found during my 30 years of researching P-39, P-400
ops in this, or any other theater during WWII. In fact the ratio of loss among
Airacobra units was surprising low in combat related operations and while the
airplane might not have been the favorite fighter to take to war the young men who
flew them carried out their missions extremely well considering their level of
experience and the lack of parts and supplies that reached them.
The combat loss to kill ratio among Airacobra units in the SWP was not as many have
suggested and P-39, P-400 or P-40 pilots never lost air superiority to the Japanese
in either New Guinea or the Aleutians.
While I do not know who CC might have talked with about pilots purposely leaving
good or even partially damaged Airacobra while in combat, as a pilot myself the last
thing you think about is to leave your airplane unless the thing is simply coming
apart or the fire is in the cockpit. You first thought normally is to try and get
home or at least put in on the ground if that option might be available. The
thought of bailing out over that vast blue Pacific into those shark infested waters
or into dark, hostile jungle where a few hostile native might consider inviting you
to dinner or, into a frozen ocean or a below freezing tundra in Alaska was always
the last option. Leaving even a slightly flying airplane was the better option than
any of these I have listed.
The 35th Fighter Group I have researched was a fine group of men who did what they
had to do with the equipment and airplanes that had available. Purposely abandoning
airplanes was not in the program. Unfortunately, many pilots who flew the airplane
in combat were not happy with it and have passed this unhappiness along. But the
final analysis proves they did an excellent job with a mediocre fighter that was
passé before the war started. But, passé as it was, Bell's P-39 was available and
the men that flew it did the job and used is well.
I am currently working on an article on the Airacobra in which I hope to list combat
victory to loss ratio in the airplane. From what I have so far gathered, the
Airacobra record is hardly presents the poor ration that has been attributed to it.
Cheers, Ron
Darcey
FlyinFin wrote:
> >If you are really interested in what flying
> combat in a P-39 might have been like<
> http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/index.html
> Fin
>
Your referral to flying combat in the P-39 does not provide insight into
combat or what it might have been like to engage the enemy in this airplane
but rather are training films produced by Bell which are introductions to the
airplane for new pilots. They are excellent films and while they certainly
provide a fine overview of flight procedures and what to do when getting
acquainted with this airplane they do not prepare the pilot for combat.
Interestingly, I used these films as a basis when test flying my homebuilt and
recomend them to anyone test flying or checking out in any aircraft. To view
them should easily explain my reasons.
Cheers, Ron
> Darcey wrote:
> >
> > Greetings Stephen: Bailing out of the P-39 required releasing the
> > emergency door latches on the right hand door and usually giving a
> > slight shove to kick the door away. Then rolling through the opening
> > onto the wing then falling away in the slipstream hoping you wouldn't
> > strick the tail surfaces. If you are really interested in what flying
> > combat in a P-39 might have been like I suggest you purchase 'Edwards
> > Parks book Nanette, published by W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. New York.
> > I believe the book is still available through either Zenith or Aviation
> > History.
> >
> > The difficulty of bailing out of the P-39 was most likely relative to
> > the (flight) attidtude of the airplane at the time of departure but from
> > what I understand was not really too difficult - but then I have never
> > flown a P-39. Those accounts I have read of pilots leaving a disabled
> > P-39 did not suggest any great difficulty.
> >
> > For some further insight, while the airplane had a door on each side, it
> > was essentially a right hand entry airplane because of the throttle that
> > protruded somewhat into the door space and in the case of an emergency
> > departure could snag a parachute harness or article of clothing
> > preventing a successful bail out.
> >
C.C. Jordan
[snip]
> As far as the coolant shutter control
>(handle) is concerned this lever was positioned on the floor well below the seat and
>would not in any way become an obstruction. While one might snag an article of
>clothing during maintenance, it is very unlikely it would provide a problem during
>bail out.
My recollection of the shutter handle is a bit different. I recall it to be on
the right-rear cockpit bulkhead, even height with the seat. Not being too
certain of my memory, I examined several photos and a cut-away illustration.
These confirmed my recollection. Nonetheless, the lever is not much of an
obstruction and can be pushed down out of the way.
>
>> The preferred method of getting out of the P-39/P-400 was to exit
>> over the leading edge of the wing. The front edge of the cockpit door
>> lines up rather well with the leading edge of the wing. The pilot would
>> jettison the door, crawl out on the wing and pull himself over the leading
>> edge. This promises that the pilots will not contact the horizontal stab
>> on the way past. The second method was to lie flat on the wing (grasping
>> the leading edge) and slide off. Because the cockpit was very far forward
>> in relation to the wing, the pilot did not have the option of simply diving out
>> between the trailing edge of the wing and the horizontal tail surfaces as did
>> those who flew more conventional fighters.
>>
>
>Any attempt to try and drag oneself over the leading edge of the wing of a disabled
>P-39 would be folly and certainly an impossibility.
Whether folly or not, there are surviving pilots who DID go over the leading
edge to clear the tail. Author and test pilot Al Blackburn made a point of
mentioning this method after his interviews with 5th AF P-39 pilots. The
Russians used various methods. At least one Russian veteran reported pulling
his P-39 into a steep climb and stepping out as the fighter approached a stall.
>When you leave an airplane you
>are not only working against the slipstream but also concentrating on getting the
>hell out of the thing and your thoughts are on altitude and the D-ring on the chute.
This is true if you are bailing out of a burning fighter or one which is no
longer controllable due to damage. However, if out of fuel or suffering an
engine failure, the urgency is not on getting out, but on getting out safely.
>Just dive for the wing and slide off. I have made many jumps from the right side of
>a Cessna 182 and the procedure is to step out onto the step (located on the right
>wing strut) with your left foot, stand on the wheel (after confirming with the pilot
>the parking brakes are set) all the while holding onto the wing strut after which
>you push off to the rear. This all taking place while the airplane is decelerated
>to around 80 mph because the slipstream would prevent any of this taking place at
>greater speeds.
Having tried sport parachuting many years ago (about 23 years ago), I really
don't think I could compare stepping out of a Cessna or Beech at 80 mph
(sideslipping to mask the slipstream) to getting out of a single engine fighter
in an emergency. Too many uncontrolled circumstances in the fighter. However,
if the P-39 pilot is bailing out in a controlled situation, then the comparison
is more valid.
>
>> Naturally, any method was dependent upon the atitude of the aircraft
>> and assumes that it is not gyrating in some manner.
>>
>> It seems that bailing out of a P-39 for virtually any reason became very common
>> in the SWPA. Pilots were actively trying to speed up the retirement of the
>> P-39/P-400. One way they believed they could accomplish this was to dump
>> the planes in the sea for the any reason whatsoever. More than a few were
>> abandoned for this reason. The 35th Fighter Squadron had become so expert
>> at "retiring" Airacobra's that several pilots were transferred to P-38 squadrons
>> to reduce operational losses.
>>
>
>With respect to pilots abandoning P-39s or P-400 in the way you suggest certainly
>does not confirm anything I have found during my 30 years of researching P-39, P-400
>ops in this, or any other theater during WWII.
So what. How many squadron maintenance officers are going to list losses
as "pilot destroyed plane in order to speed up transition to better A/C"?
Within the 36th Fighter Squadron, three pilots admitted after the war that
they had deliberately bailed out of P-39's that could have been nursed back
to the air field. Ace George Welch claimed to have personally dispatched
three P-39's in just such a manner. The Squadron Maintenance boss realized
what was really going on when Welch and his primary partner where sent to
Sydney on R&R. For several weeks the squadron suffered no losses to engine
failures or running out of fuel. Upon their return, they both took up where they
had left off. Both men were promptly transferred. Welch went to the 80th FS
(P-38's) and never lost another aircraft for any reason.
The funny thing about Welch is that he did the same thing with an old BT-2B
while attached to the 47th PS. Informed that this tired old lump would remain
until the Air Corps decided to replace it, Welch climbed aboard, took off and
after several fly-by's just off the beach (while switching the magneto off and
on), ditched the old Douglas 50 yards out from the surf. Several days later,
the 47th received a much more modern BT-9.
The official cause for the loss of the BT-2B..... Engine failure. The date of
the event: May 20th, 1941. The records still exist.
> In fact the ratio of loss among
>Airacobra units was surprising low in combat related operations and while the
>airplane might not have been the favorite fighter to take to war the young men who
>flew them carried out their missions extremely well considering their level of
>experience and the lack of parts and supplies that reached them.
I have never talked to a single pilot who preferred to keep the P-39. The almost
complete lack of aces who earned their kills in the P-39 testifies to the
aircraft's unsuitability for combat in the SWPA. Welch shot down three Japanese
aircraft in the P-39 (2 Vals and a Zeke) and he was willing to trash every P-39
in the theater to get P-38's. Whether the P-39 was as bad as the pilots believed
to be is not an issue. Why? Because perception is everything when it comes to
having confidence in ones equipment. Certainly, the Russians proved the P-39
to be combat worthy if restricted to low altitude combat. Unfortunately, the
Owen Stanley mountains dictated that combat would be above 15,000 ft.
>
>The combat loss to kill ratio among Airacobra units in the SWP was not as many have
>suggested and P-39, P-400 or P-40 pilots never lost air superiority to the Japanese
>in either New Guinea or the Aleutians.
The P-40 and P-38 were the primary fighters in either theater. The P-39 required
these to provide escort. No one liked the Airacobra. Not the pilots nor the
mechanics. Especially in the tropics of Guadalcanal or New Guinea. Indeed, it
was far more suitable on the Russian Steppe than in the heat and humidity of the
SWPA.
>
>While I do not know who CC might have talked with about pilots purposely leaving
>good or even partially damaged Airacobra while in combat, as a pilot myself the last
>thing you think about is to leave your airplane unless the thing is simply coming
>apart or the fire is in the cockpit.
That depends on several factors that you have never faced. Things such as
having to fly a hopelessly out-classed fighter against an enemy who's higher
flying fighters dictate the terms of engagement. Or, you are informed that as
long as P-39's remain available, you will fly them. "You mean when we run out of
P-39's we will get Lightnings?" How's that for motivation?
>You first thought normally is to try and get
>home or at least put in on the ground if that option might be available. The
>thought of bailing out over that vast blue Pacific into those shark infested waters
>or into dark, hostile jungle where a few hostile native might consider inviting you
>to dinner or, into a frozen ocean or a below freezing tundra in Alaska was always
>the last option. Leaving even a slightly flying airplane was the better option than
>any of these I have listed.
The 36th FS pilots bailed out or ditched over/on the beach in Radscar Bay.
I have no doubt that this was not a option in the freezing seas south of the
Aleutians.
>
>The 35th Fighter Group I have researched was a fine group of men who did what they
>had to do with the equipment and airplanes that had available. Purposely abandoning
>airplanes was not in the program. Unfortunately, many pilots who flew the airplane
>in combat were not happy with it and have passed this unhappiness along. But the
>final analysis proves they did an excellent job with a mediocre fighter that was
>passé before the war started. But, passé as it was, Bell's P-39 was available and
>the men that flew it did the job and used is well.
So what you are saying is that no pilot ever washed out an airplane because he
knew he was likely to get killed in it. Or, no one washed one out in the hope
that forced attrition would result in better equipment. I do believe that you
are being a bit naive as to the nature of people. Given options, you can be sure
that more than a few pilots would have explored them to some degree.
>I am currently working on an article on the Airacobra in which I hope to list combat
>victory to loss ratio in the airplane. From what I have so far gathered, the
>Airacobra record is hardly presents the poor ration that has been attributed to it.
I assume that you are not limiting your research to the SWPA, but to all P-39
ops? Have you ever spoken with Kevin Vance Cline? He is quite the P-39
advocate. I can send you his e-mail address if you wish. He's a very nice
fellow. I can't swear to his expertise, but he seems to know the aircraft very
well. Especially in regards to Soviet service.
Darcey
C.C. Jordan wrote:
What these people are trying to convince us is that they waited for the airplane to
approach a stall (which on the P-39 is around 120 - if I recall correctly) then popped
the door, stepped out into the wing and went forward and over the leading edge of the
wing! The Russian you referred to most probably used the stall to slow the airplane but
still went over the trailing edge otherwise he would have been crawling uphill to get
over the leading edge.
> >When you leave an airplane you
> >are not only working against the slipstream but also concentrating on getting the
> >hell out of the thing and your thoughts are on altitude and the D-ring on the chute.
>
> This is true if you are bailing out of a burning fighter or one which is no
> longer controllable due to damage. However, if out of fuel or suffering an
> engine failure, the urgency is not on getting out, but on getting out safely.
This depends on the altitude but again I cannot agree anyone would attempt working there
way over the leading edge...to much time and dragging a seat pack is hardly a convenient
way to move against the prop wash and slipstream.
> >Just dive for the wing and slide off. I have made many jumps from the right side of
> >a Cessna 182 and the procedure is to step out onto the step (located on the right
> >wing strut) with your left foot, stand on the wheel (after confirming with the pilot
> >the parking brakes are set) all the while holding onto the wing strut after which
> >you push off to the rear. This all taking place while the airplane is decelerated
> >to around 80 mph because the slipstream would prevent any of this taking place at
> >greater speeds.
>
> Having tried sport parachuting many years ago (about 23 years ago), I really
> don't think I could compare stepping out of a Cessna or Beech at 80 mph
> (sideslipping to mask the slipstream) to getting out of a single engine fighter
> in an emergency. Too many uncontrolled circumstances in the fighter. However,
> if the P-39 pilot is bailing out in a controlled situation, then the comparison
> is more valid.
>
You are correct regarding the uncontrolled circumstances in any fighter. My referral to
the Cessna was that at 80 mph there is a fair amount of wind smacking you in the face and
your body (wearing a seat pack that itself weighs in around 50 pounds - at least that is
what I believe mine weighs and I wear it overtime I fly aerobatics) is hardly streamlined
enough to facilitate moving forward in an emergency or not. To procedure is to get the
hell out and away from your earthbound wonder as fast and as convenient as possible.
Going forward might be possible but not practical and not the way this airplane was left
in normal practice.
> >
> >> Naturally, any method was dependent upon the atitude of the aircraft
> >> and assumes that it is not gyrating in some manner.
> >>
> >> It seems that bailing out of a P-39 for virtually any reason became very common
> >> in the SWPA. Pilots were actively trying to speed up the retirement of the
> >> P-39/P-400. One way they believed they could accomplish this was to dump
> >> the planes in the sea for the any reason whatsoever. More than a few were
> >> abandoned for this reason. The 35th Fighter Squadron had become so expert
> >> at "retiring" Airacobra's that several pilots were transferred to P-38 squadrons
> >> to reduce operational losses.
> >>
> >
> >With respect to pilots abandoning P-39s or P-400 in the way you suggest certainly
> >does not confirm anything I have found during my 30 years of researching P-39, P-400
> >ops in this, or any other theater during WWII.
>
> So what. How many squadron maintenance officers are going to list losses
> as "pilot destroyed plane in order to speed up transition to better A/C"?
> Within the 36th Fighter Squadron, three pilots admitted after the war that
> they had deliberately bailed out of P-39's that could have been nursed back
> to the air field. Ace George Welch claimed to have personally dispatched
> three P-39's in just such a manner. The Squadron Maintenance boss realized
> what was really going on when Welch and his primary partner where sent to
> Sydney on R&R. For several weeks the squadron suffered no losses to engine
> failures or running out of fuel. Upon their return, they both took up where they
> had left off. Both men were promptly transferred. Welch went to the 80th FS
> (P-38's) and never lost another aircraft for any reason.
There is no question the P-39 was not the most desirable fighter to take into combat but
it was all we had and credit must go to those who flew and fought with it. Both Welch
and his buddy should not only have been transferred they should have been stuffed behind
a desk, stripped of their wings to spend the war shuffling papers.
>
>
> The funny thing about Welch is that he did the same thing with an old BT-2B
> while attached to the 47th PS. Informed that this tired old lump would remain
> until the Air Corps decided to replace it, Welch climbed aboard, took off and
> after several fly-by's just off the beach (while switching the magneto off and
> on), ditched the old Douglas 50 yards out from the surf. Several days later,
> the 47th received a much more modern BT-9.
>
> > In fact the ratio of loss among
> >Airacobra units was surprising low in combat related operations and while the
> >airplane might not have been the favorite fighter to take to war the young men who
> >flew them carried out their missions extremely well considering their level of
> >experience and the lack of parts and supplies that reached them.
>
> I have never talked to a single pilot who preferred to keep the P-39. The almost
> complete lack of aces who earned their kills in the P-39 testifies to the
> aircraft's unsuitability for combat in the SWPA. Welch shot down three Japanese
> aircraft in the P-39 (2 Vals and a Zeke) and he was willing to trash every P-39
> in the theater to get P-38's. Whether the P-39 was as bad as the pilots believed
> to be is not an issue. Why? Because perception is everything when it comes to
> having confidence in ones equipment. Certainly, the Russians proved the P-39
> to be combat worthy if restricted to low altitude combat. Unfortunately, the
> Owen Stanley mountains dictated that combat would be above 15,000 ft.
>
I have never talked with a pilot who wanted to take the airplane into combat either but
the point is that the P-39 and P-40 was what we had at the time and it was what we had
to take into combat. You might also be interested that Welch considered the P-39 a
better turning airplane than either the Zero or Oscar - or at least this is what has been
reported he said. I've never heard another pilot make such a comment.
> >
> >The combat loss to kill ratio among Airacobra units in the SWP was not as many have
> >suggested and P-39, P-400 or P-40 pilots never lost air superiority to the Japanese
> >in either New Guinea or the Aleutians.
>
> The P-40 and P-38 were the primary fighters in either theater. The P-39 required
> these to provide escort. No one liked the Airacobra. Not the pilots nor the
> mechanics. Especially in the tropics of Guadalcanal or New Guinea. Indeed, it
> was far more suitable on the Russian Steppe than in the heat and humidity of the
> SWPA.
>
> CC get a grip. Japan was kicking the shit out of the US all across the Pacific and we
> put everything we had into the effort and that included P-39Ds that were shipped out of
> the states and P-400s we grabbed up from export orders. Anything and everything that
> could be used against the Japanese was in great demand and that included Airacobras.
> You should have been around the San Francisco Bay Area right after Pearl Harbor. It
> was absolutly frantic here and we were expecting to be invaded at any time. Shit we
> even had Vultee Vanguards flying protection over the Golden Gate Bridge.
> >
> >While I do not know who CC might have talked with about pilots purposely leaving
> >good or even partially damaged Airacobra while in combat, as a pilot myself the last
> >thing you think about is to leave your airplane unless the thing is simply coming
> >apart or the fire is in the cockpit.
>
> That depends on several factors that you have never faced. Things such as
> having to fly a hopelessly out-classed fighter against an enemy who's higher
> flying fighters dictate the terms of engagement. Or, you are informed that as
> long as P-39's remain available, you will fly them. "You mean when we run out of
> P-39's we will get Lightnings?" How's that for motivation?
>
As far as facing bailing out I have had two inflight emergancies and I stayed with the
airplane on both accounts. On another occasion, when flying over rugged mountains 'on
top' solid overcast below I firmly knew if anything went wrong with the airplane I was
going over the side and no other option was even a consideration.
> >You first thought normally is to try and get
> >home or at least put in on the ground if that option might be available. The
> >thought of bailing out over that vast blue Pacific into those shark infested waters
> >or into dark, hostile jungle where a few hostile native might consider inviting you
> >to dinner or, into a frozen ocean or a below freezing tundra in Alaska was always
> >the last option. Leaving even a slightly flying airplane was the better option than
> >any of these I have listed.
>
> The 36th FS pilots bailed out or ditched over/on the beach in Radscar Bay.
> I have no doubt that this was not a option in the freezing seas south of the
> Aleutians.
>
> >
> >The 35th Fighter Group I have researched was a fine group of men who did what they
> >had to do with the equipment and airplanes that had available. Purposely abandoning
> >airplanes was not in the program. Unfortunately, many pilots who flew the airplane
> >in combat were not happy with it and have passed this unhappiness along. But the
> >final analysis proves they did an excellent job with a mediocre fighter that was
> >passé before the war started. But, passé as it was, Bell's P-39 was available and
> >the men that flew it did the job and used is well.
>
> So what you are saying is that no pilot ever washed out an airplane because he
> knew he was likely to get killed in it. Or, no one washed one out in the hope
> that forced attrition would result in better equipment. I do believe that you
> are being a bit naive as to the nature of people. Given options, you can be sure
> that more than a few pilots would have explored them to some degree.
>
No, I'm not a bit naive and have certainly experience my share of chickenshits in the
military who would rather let the other guy do the dirty work. Better equipment or not.
I am also very aware of the pilots who always came home early on the tough missions
because his manifold pressure was low or his engine was rough.
> >I am currently working on an article on the Airacobra in which I hope to list combat
> >victory to loss ratio in the airplane. From what I have so far gathered, the
> >Airacobra record is hardly presents the poor ration that has been attributed to it.
>
> I assume that you are not limiting your research to the SWPA, but to all P-39
> ops? Have you ever spoken with Kevin Vance Cline? He is quite the P-39
> advocate. I can send you his e-mail address if you wish. He's a very nice
> fellow. I can't swear to his expertise, but he seems to know the aircraft very
> well. Especially in regards to Soviet service.
>
Would really appreciate CC. Thanks. Got to go. Check in with you later.
Cheers, Ron
Stephen Harding
> The preferred method of getting out of the P-39/P-400 was to exit
> over the leading edge of the wing. The front edge of the cockpit door
The book "Nanette" suggested by Darcey did not specify any specific
side to go out of, but did mention rolling out with left shoulder to
the wing and right hand on parachute D ring. This method seems to
imply a left side exit to me, but who knows. At any rate, lots of
pilots bailed out of these aircraft without problems, so it seems not
to have been difficult.
I want to thank Darcey for suggesting "Nanette" as a source of info
on P-39 operations. What a delightful read!
Although Edwards Park, the author, says up front the book is an
"exageration", it describes a wonderful series of [probably composite]
characters from a SWPA P-39 outfit of which he was a member, and the
authors "relationship" with a sometimes killer, sometimes lover, and
always "cowardly", P-39, "Nanette".
I strongly recommend a trip to your local library to read this 1977
work. It's short, easy, informative and highly enjoyable reading.
SMH
Maury Markowitz
<37E27C55...@hobart.cs.umass.edu>:
>I do recall in Sakai's book, how he chased a phenomenal P-39 pilot over
>the mountains of New Guinea, only to have it eventally crash into a
>mountain side, so (as always) a good pilot could make it perform.
Uhhh, wasn't that story about following a biplane?
>Well just curiousity, since the cockpit setup was so unique, no need to
>work at an answer. I haven't seen this addressed in any of the web
>pages I've visited yet. How did pilots get that door open? There just
>*had* to be a door release mechanism, since opening the door or going
>out through the window don't seem viable options.
I don't have any of my refs (back home in TO) but didn't it have the pull-
the-red-handle, top-falls-off system like in the P-38?
Maury
Darcey
combat. And, as Stephen commented Parks as referring Nanette as An
Exaggeration, Richard Bach exclaimed on the jacket cover; "A brief, crystal
window into the life of and thought of a fighter pilot. But I disagree
with his subtitle - it's no exaggeration at all."
The pilots Park includes in his book are fictious characters but I do
believe they are certainly compositits of the men who flew with the 35th
and truly existed.
I would further comment that for those who have served in the military this
will be a great experience however for them that didn't, if might be
somewhat difficult to understand.
Edwards Park is also an editor of the Smithsonian Air & Space magazine and
can be found in most often with equally amusing stories.
Get the book and really enjoy a wonderful bit of writing.
Cheers, Ron
Stephen Harding
> har...@hobart.cs.umass.edu (Stephen Harding) wrote in
> <37E27C55...@hobart.cs.umass.edu>:
>
> >I do recall in Sakai's book, how he chased a phenomenal P-39 pilot over
> >the mountains of New Guinea, only to have it eventally crash into a
> >mountain side, so (as always) a good pilot could make it perform.
>
> Uhhh, wasn't that story about following a biplane?
Pretty certain it was a P-39 Maury. In fact, I don't remember anything
about a biplane in Sakai. How about the B-25 that put up a great fight?
> I don't have any of my refs (back home in TO) but didn't it have the pull-
> the-red-handle, top-falls-off system like in the P-38?
Looks like there was a latch that released the door, which then blew off
totally in the slipstream. Pilot then rolled out the open doorway, although
don't know which side was preferred, but it seems either door had obstructions
that could be problematic if you weren't careful.
SMH
Darcey
Stephen Harding wrote:
> "C.C. Jordan" wrote:
>
> > The preferred method of getting out of the P-39/P-400 was to exit
> > over the leading edge of the wing. The front edge of the cockpit door
>
> The book "Nanette" suggested by Darcey did not specify any specific
> side to go out of, but did mention rolling out with left shoulder to
> the wing and right hand on parachute D ring. This method seems to
> imply a left side exit to me, but who knows. At any rate, lots of
> pilots bailed out of these aircraft without problems, so it seems not
> to have been difficult.
>
What Park discribed was that going through the right hand door one simply
rolled out onto your left shoulder and slid off the wing. The pilots
flight manual for this airplane directs emergancy exits to the right hand
door as the throttle quadrant protrudes somewhat into the doorway on the
left side.
> I want to thank Darcey for suggesting "Nanette" as a source of info
> on P-39 operations. What a delightful read!
>
Glad you liked the book. I read my copy at least once a year over a
brandy, in front of the fireplace on cold, rainy, winter nights. Books
like this have been inspirational to me and stimulated my own book and
several aviation articles.
For additional great reading Stephen I would also recommend "1000
Destroyed," by Grover Hall. This is one of the finest squadron histories
ever published and covers the 4th Fighter Group from the Eagle Squadrons
through to the end of the war. After reading this book you have the
impression you were a member of the group and personally acquainted with
each and every one of the "boys." I believe it is once again in print and
no combat library is complete without it.
Cheers, Ron