# What do you think of the bell p-39 was it a good dogfighter



## stalkervision (Jun 16, 2005)

I know someone that just raves about the p-39 and says Chuck Yeager loved it! What do you think about the plane. As good as the me-109?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2005)

One word: Nope!


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 16, 2005)

I'll second that motion.


----------



## Aggie08 (Jun 16, 2005)

quickly shot down...

if i recall correctly it worked fine at low altitudes and was used for attack with decent success and didnt work well at higher altitudes, something about the air intake i think. sound right to anyone else?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 16, 2005)

The P-39 is the perfect example of what happens when the government continually changes a design requirement during development. The P-39 initially was designed as a high altitude interceptor, had a supercharger, and seemed to have a bright future. Then the AAF wanted the thing to drop bombs and carry additional equipment. When the supercharger went away the AAF forgot that fact and placed it in harms way and emplyed tactics which it got smacked around pretty good, although the export versions, the P-400 did well in some cases as it had a more reliable cannon and was employed at lower altitudes. The Russians obviously had success with it and Bell tried to improve the design with P-63, actually a much better aircraft. I had an uncle who was washed out of flight training, but had a chance to fly a P-39 and he always felt uneasy knowing that there was this long drive shaft between his legs!

If you ask me, the aircraft got a bad rap and was continually placed in roles by the AAF for which it wasn't intended. Would I want to fly against an ME-109 in one? HELL NO! Give me some trucks and trains to shoot at instead!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2005)

It was not a good plane. Although the Russians used them well, which leads me to draw the conclsion that it was a good plane with inaccessible performance. The P-39 was designed in the same specification as the P-38 and P-40. Look how much more successful the P-38 was that both these aircraft! 2 englines, with superchargers, are better than one castrated engine (obviously  ) 8)

But no. It really wasnt a good plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> The P-39 was designed in the same specification as the P-38 and P-40. Look how much more successful the P-38 was that both these aircraft! 2 englines, with superchargers, are better than one castrated engine (obviously  ) 8)
> 
> But no. It really wasnt a good plane.



That's because the USAAF left the P-38 design board alone as the aircraft was so advanced. The man responsible for the P-38 desgin was probably smarter than the whole USAAF procurement board!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2005)

Oh I agree, Kelly Johnson was a great man. He knew what he was doing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Oh I agree, Kelly Johnson was a great man. He knew what he was doing.



Yep - very tactfully he had a way of telling government beaucrafts to F#*k off, unless they brought a good idea to the table. Fortunetly people in high places left him alone and listened to him most of the time.

The P-63 was a much better aircraft, but still sub-par when compared to say a Mustang or P-38. I think I would of used it in lieu of the P-40.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2005)

Me too.

How did the P-39/P-63 cope as a Ground Attack plane?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Me too.
> 
> How did the P-39/P-63 cope as a Ground Attack plane?



Real well, at least as far as the Russians go. I believe the P-63 climbed about 3400 FPM, and had a service ceiling of 43,000 ft, not bad for a "dog." 

Believe it or not there was a plan to put a merlin in the P-63, but it never happened.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The P-39 is the perfect example of what happens when the government continually changes a design requirement during development. The P-39 initially was designed as a high altitude interceptor, had a supercharger, and seemed to have a bright future. Then the AAF wanted the thing to drop bombs and carry additional equipment. When the supercharger went away the AAF forgot that fact and placed it in harms way and emplyed tactics which it got smacked around pretty good, although the export versions, the P-400 did well in some cases as it had a more reliable cannon and was employed at lower altitudes. The Russians obviously had success with it and Bell tried to improve the design with P-63, actually a much better aircraft. I had an uncle who was washed out of flight training, but had a chance to fly a P-39 and he always felt uneasy knowing that there was this long drive shaft between his legs!
> 
> If you ask me, the aircraft got a bad rap and was continually placed in roles by the AAF for which it wasn't intended. Would I want to fly against an ME-109 in one? HELL NO! Give me some trucks and trains to shoot at instead!



Almost sounds like the German RLM!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I agree, Kelly Johnson was a great man. He knew what he was doing.
> ...



a great axample of how politics can effect an aircraft.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2005)

And this was prevelant in Germany.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > cheddar cheese said:
> ...



Very true my young friend! I think Bell just went along with what the government wanted and when things didn't work, it was real easy to blame the contractor for buiding a bad plane, although that same bad plane worked well with the Russians, were built in huge numbers, and still made someone very rich!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

i think politics stay out of british planes for the most part, there are occasions where they get involved but you'll always have them.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2005)

When its bad is when you have a politician getting involved in an aircraft's development or procurement and they know nothing about aircraft, engineering, the military or anything mechanical!  

We had a senator here named Pat Schroeder. She made a comment about Stealth Technology - "Well I don't know whats good about it, I also don't know whats bad about it." My God! This woman was deciding what equipment the US military would purchase, it sounded like she was deciding a shoe purchase!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

hehe!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2005)

I think to answer this, Was the P-39 a good dogfighter? Well only if you saw this in front of you whilst firing the 37mm cannon. After that you better run like hell!  

No the P-39 was NOT a good dogfighter!


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 17, 2005)

In Warren Bodies book on the P-38, Ben Kelsely, the AAF rep for the P-38 tells the story that the P-38 escaped the "Help" of the AAF engineering staff at Wright Patterson Air Base because of the crash of the prototype. The P-39 didn't have that Blessing and suffered a lot. 

wmaxt

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2005)

Yep - When the P-38 started experiencing compressibility problems Wright Patterson engineers tried to put their 2 cents in. One recommendation was the installation of the elevator mass balance commonly seen on the P-38s tail. I attended a Lockheed Management club dinner back in 1982 and Kelly Johnson was the guest speaker. He said the mass balance does nothing and he agreed to install them just to shut up the AF engineers!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## delcyros (Jun 18, 2005)

A problem for the P-39 was the comparably heavy weight. The VVS usually removed cockpit armor and took on further weight saving measures, from which the airplane benefitted, esspeccially at low alt.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2005)

delcyros said:


> A problem for the P-39 was the comparably heavy weight. The VVS usually removed cockpit armor and took on further weight saving measures, from which the airplane benefitted, esspeccially at low alt.



Did they removed all the armor?


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 18, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep - When the P-38 started experiencing compressibility problems Wright Patterson engineers tried to put their 2 cents in. One recommendation was the installation of the elevator mass balance commonly seen on the P-38s tail. I attended a Lockheed Management club dinner back in 1982 and Kelly Johnson was the guest speaker. He said the mass balance does nothing and he agreed to install them just to shut up the AF engineers!



Not just to shut them up - the AAF threatened to stop the contract as they were convinced that was the cause of the tail buffet, compressability showed up at the same time but was a different issue. The introduction of the root fillets at the wing/gondola juncture smothing the airflow fixing the buffet. Incidentaly the roll down side windows did the same thing when they were opened.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Yep - When the P-38 started experiencing compressibility problems Wright Patterson engineers tried to put their 2 cents in. One recommendation was the installation of the elevator mass balance commonly seen on the P-38s tail. I attended a Lockheed Management club dinner back in 1982 and Kelly Johnson was the guest speaker. He said the mass balance does nothing and he agreed to install them just to shut up the AF engineers!
> ...



Yep - I heard that many AAF brass were continually threatening to cancel P-38 production if the compressibility probelm wasn't addressed. When it was proved that the tail buffet and the compressibility problems were 2 different things, the mass balances stayed. Johnson wanted to issue an EO to remove the balances, Bob Gross, the Lockheed President at the time sided with the Army.


----------



## JamesBlonde (Jun 19, 2005)

From what I hear the P-39 was a bi of a dud. It got a reputation as a deathtra amongst USAAF cadets who flew it over Arizona etc due to the fact that it was difficult to know when the a/c was going to stall. Apparently it gave little or no warning and was qite difficult to recover due to the c of g problems inherent with the placement of the engine.

However treated right and flown with the professional hand it was, nevertheless, an effective machine (Then again so was the Gloster Gladiator).

Basically I consider the '39 to be an inferior machine but we all know that it isn't the machine so much in A2A combat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> delcyros said:
> 
> 
> > A problem for the P-39 was the comparably heavy weight. The VVS usually removed cockpit armor and took on further weight saving measures, from which the airplane benefitted, esspeccially at low alt.
> ...



I hope they removed more than just the cockpit armor. That would mess up the CG of the aircraft!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I hope they removed more than just the cockpit armor. That would mess up the CG of the aircraft!



Great point Adler! There have been incidents where armor was removed from restored warbirds with disasterous results!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

I can believe it. A lot of people underestimate how dangerous the CG can be if it is not correct.

They dont realize how much removing 20 pounds here will effect the balance and overall handeling of an aircraft that weighs 5000lb.


----------



## JamesBlonde (Jun 19, 2005)

I think I may have mentioned that the G of G ws already in a bad way due to the engine placement. Removing a bit of armour shouldn'y make much difference.

I heard a similar tale from 111 sqn (BEF) in France 1940 abut a hurri pilot who put salvaged armour from a Do-17 behind the seat of his a/c. The authorities frowned upon the liberties he took citing that this would interfere with the C of G. Funnily enough nothing more was heard of the matter after said pilot did a rather impressive aerobatics display infront of the staff who questioned his decision. It wasn't long before the whole sqn followed his lead and installed armour. 

Some of you have probably heard this before. Personally I think that taking any armour OUT of the P-39 is a bad idea since with an a/c as bad as that you might need all the help you can get!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2005)

That was 1st Squadron, not 111th Squadron. Every Hurricane thereafter had seat armour.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 19, 2005)

Cool info....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2005)

JamesBlonde said:


> Removing a bit of armour shouldn'y make much difference.



I hate to say it James but that is wrong. As little of 5 pounds removed or added can shift the center of gravity out of limits. If the aircraft gives little or no stall warning, this could be disastrous during landing and especially if a green pilot is flying.

This is 4x more critical on helicopters, just ask Adler!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> JamesBlonde said:
> 
> 
> > Removing a bit of armour shouldn'y make much difference.
> ...



That is absolutely true! On helicopters if the CG is only a little bit out it completly changes the flight characteristics of the aircraft. For instance it can make it harder to pull out of a roll or a sharp turn, which can be very deadly.

We actually had our whole fleet grounded shortly after we got back from Iraq because we had removed the ballistic armour installed while we were there but there were areas around the cockpit that could not be removed so there was like 80 extra pounds in the cockpit. This screwed up our CG way crazy and our QC shop and the Lar had to figure out a way to modify the aircraft to get the CG into limits. Eventually we were able to get the stuff out and work something out. All is good now!!!


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 20, 2005)

You have to take into consideration where in relation to the CG the weight is. 5 pounds in the tail is may affect the CG more than 100lbs 1 foot aft of the CG.

In the P-39 the armor was very close to the CG and made little if any difference in it. Modified P-39s were very fast, after the war they won many air races. Speeds comparable to P-38s anf F2Gs and normaly faster than the P-51s until the more modified P-51s started showing up.

In the hands of a good pilot it was pretty effective and quite maneuverable, though it had been hurt badly by the Engineers at Wright Patterson AB with "It looks Good" engineering. When used in a way that matched it's capabilities it was an effective aircraft!

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> You have to take into consideration where in relation to the CG the weight is. 5 pounds in the tail is may affect the CG more than 100lbs 1 foot aft of the CG.
> 
> In the P-39 the armor was very close to the CG and made little if any difference in it. Modified P-39s were very fast, after the war they won many air races. Speeds comparable to P-38s anf F2Gs and normaly faster than the P-51s until the more modified P-51s started showing up.
> 
> ...



I agree for the most part however even with the armor close to the CG, I believe the CG envelope of the 39 was only a few inches. Removing the armor and flying the aircraft full of fuel or with minimal fuel could produce undesirable results. I would like to get my hands on a P-39 W&B chart and find out how much armor was actually carried on the -39....

The post war 39s and 63s were very fast and when they were modified, and I'm sure that when armor and guns were removed, in some cases ballast had to be added as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > You have to take into consideration where in relation to the CG the weight is. 5 pounds in the tail is may affect the CG more than 100lbs 1 foot aft of the CG.
> ...



Stumbled on this from a former P-39 pilot....

"The center of gravity of the Cobra was exceptionally rearward. We even had 10 kilos of lead weight mounted in the forward portion to unload the tail. Sometimes this center of gravity created problems with the wing and in inverted flight. Once again, during non-combat flights, don’t place any load in the empty rear portion of the fuselage. Somebody didn’t do it and couldn’t make it back. The airplane flew as if balanced on a tip of an awl. Later we gained experience and loaded everything in the forward compartment."


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 20, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I agree for the most part however even with the armor close to the CG, I believe the CG envelope of the 39 was only a few inches. Removing the armor and flying the aircraft full of fuel or with minimal fuel could produce undesirable results. I would like to get my hands on a P-39 W&B chart and find out how much armor was actually carried on the -39....
> 
> The post war 39s and 63s were very fast and when they were modified, and I'm sure that when armor and guns were removed, in some cases ballast had to be added as well.



The weight and Balance sheet and the armor location/weight charts would tell us if ballast was required.

The P-39 though didn't have issues like the P-51 where the fusalage tank could actually go from one extreme to the other. I've just never heard of serious problems with the P-39 regarding CG issues. Removing the armor was common on P-39s.

My main point is that CG issues could be major but normaly they just need to thought out and approached carefully. It's also true that designers like to place things that change in flight, like fuel, in locations that are nuetral to the CG and things that don't change, like armor, in places that affect the CG more. Research is important here.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > I agree for the most part however even with the armor close to the CG, I believe the CG envelope of the 39 was only a few inches. Removing the armor and flying the aircraft full of fuel or with minimal fuel could produce undesirable results. I would like to get my hands on a P-39 W&B chart and find out how much armor was actually carried on the -39....
> ...



And I could tell you in "basic pilot 101" reward CG is not a good thing, especially for newer pilots. I also found data that the Russians issued directive to P-39 pilots not to pull out of dives in a left turn...the tail could be pulled off!


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 20, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And I could tell you in "basic pilot 101" reward CG is not a good thing, especially for newer pilots. I also found data that the Russians issued directive to P-39 pilots not to pull out of dives in a left turn...the tail could be pulled off!



I agree 100%, and forward CG can get real interesting when you take power off as well. I was never suggesting flying anything out of balance. I was just commenting on the possible effects:

First the effects are variable depending on distance from the CG. 

Second is that the pilots armor in a P-39 is very close to the CG. 

Third the resulting effect might not be that great. If ballast is required, a 5lb weight in the nose/tail may be enough to countor a reduction of 100lbs, 6 inches off the CG (using examples for discussion here not actual numbers)

I'm more aware of the P-39 than knowledgable and I am not debating that removing the armor may have an effect (other than just weight reduction) or that it might be a lot just that it probably isn't a big deal if it's done right.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2005)

I think we agree to agree!

When I was looking up information on the P-39 I found that aces Yeager and Anderson really liked the airplane. I always felt it got a bad rap. I thought the P-63D was the Bell answer to the P-51, but too little, too late.

I'll try to find the site I got some of this data from...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Ah the Weight and Balance Sheet! I hate it, I hate it, I hate. So important yet so tedious!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 21, 2005)

Yep!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

We have to update our 365-4 and -17's every 90 days and it can be a real headache.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 21, 2005)

I found on www.zenowarbirdvideos.com a sample P-39Q W&B chart. This aircraft calcualtes horizontal AND vertical CG. The page is difficult to read but it looks like the horizontal CG envelope is about 1 inch (133.56/ 134.22 from what I could read)


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 21, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I found on www.zenowarbirdvideos.com a sample P-39Q W&B chart. This aircraft calcualtes horizontal AND vertical CG. The page is difficult to read but it looks like the horizontal CG envelope is about 1 inch (133.56/ 134.22 from what I could read)



Thats terrible.    

Just looking at the chart and from comments made earlier taking out the armor is probably benificial in all regaurds (except getting shot in the back).

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 21, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > I found on www.zenowarbirdvideos.com a sample P-39Q W&B chart. This aircraft calcualtes horizontal AND vertical CG. The page is difficult to read but it looks like the horizontal CG envelope is about 1 inch (133.56/ 134.22 from what I could read)
> ...



 - MY GOD! HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CG - WORSE THAN A HELICOPTER! And if I had to fly this in combat, I think its safer to risk getting shot in the back!


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 21, 2005)

[quote="FLYBOYJ]

 - MY GOD! HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CG - WORSE THAN A HELICOPTER! And if I had to fly this in combat, I think its safer to risk getting shot in the back! [/quote]

Yup  

Was the King Cobra any better?

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 21, 2005)

I'll try to find out!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> - MY GOD! HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CG - WORSE THAN A HELICOPTER! And if I had to fly this in combat, I think its safer to risk getting shot in the back!



No Shit!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 21, 2005)

No wonder why so many P-39 racers crashed?!?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

I bet, plus to be a racer they removed all that armour and uneeded stuff and that probably screwed it up real bad.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 21, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I bet, plus to be a racer they removed all that armour and uneeded stuff and that probably screwed it up real bad.



If they didn't watch what they were doing, it could of. But as wmaxt said earlier, it might of helped things!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Maybe but I am still skeptacle.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2005)

From some of the data I gthered on the net, it seems ths -39 could be a handful. Stalls and spins could be dangerous and it landed at 90 mph! Once site mentioned that the P-63 was much improved and landed slower (didn't say how much). Here's a few of the sites I visited.

http://www.bcwarbirds.com/roger_c_palmer.htm

http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=18

http://www.southernoregonwarbirds.org/honmem.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2005)

Good sites. From what I have read, the pilot of a P-39 had a terrible time knowing when the aircraft was going to stall.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 25, 2005)

Scary!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2005)

Yes that it would be.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 25, 2005)

On a smaller but similar scale - When I was learning to fly I was in a Cessna 152. When doing stalls in this particular aircraft, if not careful it would snap over and spin, even with the proper rudder inputs. At first my instructor thought it was me. Later on we discovered that this aircraft survived a mid-air collision and the left wing asymmetry (the slight twist in the wing) was off causing the aircraft to stall differently. There is nothing more scary in flying an aircraft when you don't know how its going to behave in a stall!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2005)

I agree with you. That is one thing that I allways hated was practicing stall recoveries. I just hate putting aircraft into situations that suck!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 25, 2005)

And could you imagine on the P-39 with the engine located so far aft!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2005)

As I said before I just would not like sitting on a drive shaft like that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2005)

Yep! - And after firing the cannon, the cockpit filled up with smoke - Fun!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

Lovely you really have to enjoy that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

*Oh don't give me a P-39. 
The one with the engine behind. 
It will tumble and roll. 
It will dig a big hole. 
Oh don't give me a P-39.*

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 29, 2005)

Maybe not, but they look damn good 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2005)

Personal tast my friend. I never really liked the looks of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 30, 2005)

me neither.....


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 30, 2005)

Me threeither.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 30, 2005)

Adler said, "_As I said before I just would not like sitting on a drive shaft like that._"

You're just not used to having a big shaft between your legs.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 30, 2005)

Then why did the Russians like them so much?


----------



## Flyboy15 (Jul 1, 2005)

No, not really. Also, the design of the aircraft turned out to be very inconvienient to the pilot. Everything that the designers tried to make better, they actually made worse. It is really a very sad failure if I do say so myself.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Adler said, "_As I said before I just would not like sitting on a drive shaft like that._"
> 
> You're just not used to having a big shaft between your legs.



Wouldn't you like to know


----------



## Vahe Demirjian (Dec 28, 2019)

The P-39 wasn't always a good USAAF dogfighter because the lack of turbosupercharger prevented it from flying at higher altitudes where it could challenge Bf 109s and Fw 190s, but the P-39 was popular among Soviet airmen as a ground attack aircraft.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 29, 2019)



Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 29, 2019)

Vahe Demirjian said:


> The P-39 wasn't always a good USAAF dogfighter because the lack of turbosupercharger prevented it from flying at higher altitudes where it could challenge Bf 109s and Fw 190s, but the P-39 was popular among Soviet airmen as a ground attack aircraft.



Except its main use by the USSR was air-to-air, not ground attack.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 29, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> Except its main use by the USSR was air-to-air, not ground attack.


Never let the facts get in the way of a good story................journalism 101.


----------



## Joe Broady (Dec 29, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The P-39 initially was designed as a high altitude interceptor, had a supercharger, and seemed to have a bright future. Then the AAF wanted the thing to drop bombs and carry additional equipment. When the supercharger went away the AAF forgot that fact and placed it in harms way



I have a hard time believing any P-39 lacked a supercharger.

The Feb 2020 Flight Journal mentions the Nov 1942 flight tests of Koga's Zero vs. its American contemporaries. Against the P-39D, "In a formation takeoff climbing to 5,000 feet, the Zero was at 4,000 feet when the Airacobra reached 5,000 feet... starting from 220 mph level at 10,000, the Airacobra again accelerated markedly away from the Zero... Climbing from 15,000 to 20,000 feet, the Zero took immediate advantage and walked away from the Airacobra... On a straight climb from takeoff to 25,000 feet, the Airacobra maintained the advantage until 14,800 feet and from then on the Zero pulled ahead reaching 25,000 feet five minutes ahead of the Airacobra."

Test pilot Corky Meyer says, "the Zero kept performing for every flight while both the Allison and Packard engines couldn't keep up, even with the optimum maintenance of flight testing."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 29, 2019)

Joe Broady said:


> I have a hard time believing any P-39 lacked a supercharger.
> 
> The Feb 2020 Flight Journal mentions the Nov 1942 flight tests of Koga's Zero vs. its American contemporaries. Against the P-39D, "In a formation takeoff climbing to 5,000 feet, the Zero was at 4,000 feet when the Airacobra reached 5,000 feet... starting from 220 mph level at 10,000, the Airacobra again accelerated markedly away from the Zero... Climbing from 15,000 to 20,000 feet, the Zero took immediate advantage and walked away from the Airacobra... On a straight climb from takeoff to 25,000 feet, the Airacobra maintained the advantage until 14,800 feet and from then on the Zero pulled ahead reaching 25,000 feet five minutes ahead of the Airacobra."
> 
> Test pilot Corky Meyer says, "the Zero kept performing for every flight while both the Allison and Packard engines couldn't keep up, even with the optimum maintenance of flight testing."


It had an Allison engine with a single speed, single stage supercharger. What they left off was a turbo charger like the P38 had

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2019)

Joe Broady said:


> I have a hard time believing any P-39 lacked a supercharger.
> 
> The Feb 2020 Flight Journal mentions the Nov 1942 flight tests of Koga's Zero vs. its American contemporaries. Against the P-39D, "In a formation takeoff climbing to 5,000 feet, the Zero was at 4,000 feet when the Airacobra reached 5,000 feet... starting from 220 mph level at 10,000, the Airacobra again accelerated markedly away from the Zero... Climbing from 15,000 to 20,000 feet, the Zero took immediate advantage and walked away from the Airacobra... On a straight climb from takeoff to 25,000 feet, the Airacobra maintained the advantage until 14,800 feet and from then on the Zero pulled ahead reaching 25,000 feet five minutes ahead of the Airacobra."
> 
> Test pilot Corky Meyer says, "the Zero kept performing for every flight while both the Allison and Packard engines couldn't keep up, even with the optimum maintenance of flight testing."



Old post and that should have been "turbocharger."

From wiki - I don't feel like pulling up all the references.

_"The production P-39 retained a single-stage, single-speed supercharger with a critical altitude (above which performance declined) of about 12,000 feet (3,660 m). As a result, the aircraft was simpler to produce and maintain. However, the deletion of the turbo destroyed any chance that the P-39 could serve as a medium-high altitude front-line fighter. When deficiencies were noticed in 1940 and 1941, the lack of a turbo made it nearly impossible to improve upon the Airacobra's performance. The removal of the turbocharger and its drag inducing inlet cured the drag problem but reduced performance overall. In later years, Kelsey expressed regret at not being present to override the decision to eliminate the turbo."_


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 29, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> When its bad is when you have a politician getting involved in an aircraft's development or procurement and they know nothing about aircraft, engineering, the military or anything mechanical!
> 
> We had a senator here named Pat Schroeder. She made a comment about Stealth Technology - "Well I don't know whats good about it, I also don't know whats bad about it." My God! This woman was deciding what equipment the US military would purchase, it sounded like she was deciding a shoe purchase!


Yes I remember her. sums her up perfectly.


----------



## grampi (Dec 31, 2019)

I highly doubt Yeager loved the P-39...


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 31, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> When its bad is when you have a politician getting involved in an aircraft's development or procurement and they know nothing about aircraft, engineering, the military or anything mechanical!
> 
> We had a senator here named Pat Schroeder. She made a comment about Stealth Technology - "Well I don't know whats good about it, I also don't know whats bad about it." My God! This woman was deciding what equipment the US military would purchase, it sounded like she was deciding a shoe purchase!



Don't forget that some of those some of those ignorant politicians wear uniforms -- the problems with the navy's A-12, the JSF, and the DD-1000 programs were coming from the Pentagon, not Capitol Hill. A politician who's admitting ignorance is much less problematic than one who makes decisions thinking he is the expert. For a non-defense area, see the Florida legislature and the Kansas School Board.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> A politician who's admitting ignorance is much less problematic than one who makes decisions thinking he is the expert.



Agree 100% but these situations are far and few. When Pat Schroeder made those comments she was pandering to both sides of the aisle. Dianne Feinstein from California did the same thing, while embracing the anti-military left she supported the B-2 program as it brought thousands of jobs to California.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 2, 2020)

grampi said:


> I highly doubt Yeager loved the P-39...



Yeager did like the P-39 but never flew one in combat...Chuck Yeager - WW2 Mustang ace who later broke the sound barrier

"Assigned to the 363rd Fighter Squadron, of the 357th Fighter Group, he moved up to P-39s with the squadron at Tonopah, Nevada. Unlike many other pilots, he always liked the P-39 (which probably would have been a decent airplane if it had had a turbocharger). Here at Tonopah, he first developed the fighter pilot's detached attitude toward death, even getting angry at those he thought had died needlessly or through lack of skill. During the ruthless weeding-out process at Tonopah, the pilots worked as hard at playing as they did at flying."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2020)

Because a pilot may like an aircraft, it doesn't mean that it would be their first choice to go into combat. I say this as I have read about two RAF pilots who preferred the Mk IX/XVI as the Griffin engine versions took more effort to control due to the increase in weight. However I would bet a penny to a pound that if told they were going into combat, that the would take the Mk XIV

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 2, 2020)

Glider said:


> Because a pilot may like an aircraft, it doesn't mean that it would be their first choice to go into combat. I say this as I have read about two RAF pilots who preferred the Mk IX/XVI as the Griffin engine versions took more effort to control due to the increase in weight. However I would bet a penny to a pound that if told they were going into combat, that the would take the Mk XIV


I think I'd prefer a Spitfire IX/XVI with 150 grade fuel, better range, climb, acceleration, maybe slower though.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 2, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> I think I'd prefer a Spitfire IX/XVI with 150 grade fuel, better range, climb, acceleration, maybe slower though.


That is problemo nr uno: in any army one does not get to choose. Here... this is your ride to fame or death. We do not care. Just filling seats. 
Now the ball starts rolling when there are
:A no seats
:B seats are shot in abandance from the sky
Problem with war is you have to plan in advance of conflict. So many conflicting parties are there to muddle up the decisions best made.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 2, 2020)

Hello Gentlemen,

I believe there has been a lot of discussion here that has mis-characterized the Airacobra.

This are my opinions, but I believe there is plenty of evidence to back them up if anyone would care to debate.
Was the Airacobra a good Dogfighter?
I believe it was.... Within the limits of its performance: Only at low and medium altitudes.
It didn't have very good roll performance and its harmony of controls wasn't particularly good.
It's elevators was very sensitive, probably too sensitive and it was easy to stall if not careful.
The rudder was also quite effective.
Ailerons were a bit heavy and maximum roll rate was not particularly high.

As for the balance of the aircraft, the CoG range seems to be acceptable from about 24.5% to 30% MAC which is not a particularly narrow margin.
The Aft CG limit is calculated with zero fuel and ammunition, so is not a likely situation. MAC is 80.64 inches.
Pilot reports say that aerobatics with CoG near the aft end of the range are dangerous and the aircraft may be unpredictable at the stall and stall may come with no warning.

The Airacobra flew pretty well and predictably as long as the CoG was reasonably far forward.
The problem was that just about all of its disposable loads were AHEAD of CG and CG gradually moved aft as the loads were expended.
The most important load was the ammunition for the .50 cal cowl MG - normally 200 rounds (124 pounds)
The next most important was the ammunition for the 37 mm cannon - 30 rounds (60 pounds)
Wing Gun ammunition was slightly ahead of the CG.
Even Fuel was about 1-2 inches ahead of the CG.

The Pilot sat several inches ahead of the CG and as we know, pilots come in various weights.

See the P-39Q Weight & Balance Chart. (I suspect the CoG for the earlier P-39s was 1-2 inches further aft)

As for Armour, although the locations were the same for nearly all models of the Airacobra, the thicknesses and sometimes the materials differed.
This was probably to account for the differences in weight of the equipment installed in different models of Airacobra.

Attached is a diagram of the locations of armour on the Airacobra. 
Last chart details the weights of the pieces of armour installed in each variant of the Airacobra.











As for removing armour, I am fairly certain that the Soviets did this on their Lend-Lease Airacobra's. I was reading a report recently which described spin testing that was conducted on Airacobra's in various load conditions. In 4 of the 5 aircraft tested, the oil tank armour was removed at least during the test.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2020)

Ivan - excellent information.

I'e mentioned this several times - the P-39 was very unique as it had a vertical and horizontal weight and balance calculation. This is rare for fixed wing aircraft, very common on helicopters.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 2, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> I think I'd prefer a Spitfire IX/XVI with 150 grade fuel, better range, climb, acceleration, maybe slower though.



Mk XIV was faster, climbed better*, dived better, better acceleration and had, essentially, the same handling as a IX/XVI.

After all, you could always give the XIV 150 octane fuel.

*The IX with 150 grade fuel, Merlin 66 and +25psi boost may have climbed better at low altitude than the XIV with PN 100/130 fuel at +18psi boost.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 2, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Ivan - excellent information.
> 
> I'e mentioned this several times - the P-39 was very unique as it had a vertical and horizontal weight and balance calculation. This is rare for fixed wing aircraft, very common on helicopters.



Hello FLYBOYJ,

Thanks. 
In what I was describing about the Soviets, I forgot to mention that they also normally deleted all the wing armament.
The wing guns for a P-39Q are at station 134.
The ammunition for the wing guns is at station 133.
From my calculations by deleting all disposable loads from the fully loaded weight, the CG of the equipped aircraft with a typical pilot on board would be at about station 135.88 but that does not take into account some things like coolant and engine or reduction gear oil quantities.

From a Russian manual on the P-39D, it appears that they also used 250 rounds instead of 200 rounds in each cowl gun which lessens the biggest disposable load problem and shifts the CG forward.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

