# The rear cockpit engine installation of P-39 Air cobra



## Fardad Izadi (Apr 6, 2017)

What are the advantages of rear cockpit engine installation of P-39 Air cobra ?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2017)

Supposedly with the engine located at the center of gravity the plane would be more responsive/maneuverable. Since some response comes from the size of the control surfaces, the distance from the CG and/or the aerodynamic center of the aircraft and the effort needed to move them there are too many variables to say wither ti really worked or not.

The other reason is that it left the nose clear for the wacking big 37mm cannon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## chuter (Apr 10, 2017)

The cannon was the reason for the choice of the configuration.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 10, 2017)

RAF pilots hated the P-39. Their main gripes were the drop in performance above 20,000 feet, a tendency to spin, and the difficulty to recover from a spin. Also on the list was the short range of 430 miles on internal reserves and 690 miles with drop tanks. They also reported that fumes would fill the cockpit after firing the guns. In the end the British dumped their P-39s on the USAAC; the rest of the order was cancelled.
The Americans fared even worse with their Airacobras. When the United States was plunged into war with Japan, its primary land-based fighters were the P-40 and P-39. P-39 pilots experienced the same difficulties as the British and also complained that the M4 cannon often jammed.
The air battles of the Pacific were fought at intermediate altitudes, optimal conditions for Bell's fighter. But the American pilots were not facing Bf-109s, but ultra-light and super-agile A6M Zeros and Ki-43 Oscars. The P-39, like every other Allied fighter (including the vaunted Spitfire), could not turn as tight or maneuver as quickly as these nimble Japanese fighters.
Also, the 37mm cannon was not an effective air-to-air weapon. Though it might only take one hit to bring down the fragile Zero, the slow rate of fire and drooping trajectory made that one hit improbable. And not all P-39s had the 37mm cannon; the Airacobras the British handed over to the USAAC had a 20mm cannon in its place. This type was called the P-400. It soon became the joke of the Pacific that a P-400 was a P-39 with a Zero on its tail. But, 37mm or not, the two .50 and four .30 caliber machine guns could still make short work of a Zeke. Perhaps the biggest reasons for the P-39's bad showing in the Pacific were the lack of knowledge about Japanese aircraft, numerical inferiority, and veteran enemy pilots. U.S. pilots found the Airacobra's flaws unforgivable and requested transfers to P-38 units before these problems could be resolved. In the hands of the USAAC the P-39 proved a dismal failure and seemed a perfect candidate for the title "Worst fighter of World War II."
Of the 9,585 examples of the P-39 built before the end of the war, 4,500 (almost half) were given to the USSR.
Of the five principal fighters flown by Army Air Forces pilots during the war (P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, P-51), only the P-39 never had an association of pilots who met to share their experiences at reunions. Only the P-39 is not included in the fighter memorial at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## chuter (Apr 22, 2017)

Yeah, the P-39 and P-40 weren't so much outclassed by the Japanese as much as they didn't provide any clear advantage, and the last thing a combat pilot wants is a comparable aircraft (unless he already has less than that). American pilots knew they could/should expect better aircraft and so demanded them. The P-39 and P-40 made great advanced trainers, though!


----------

