Yes they did, in September 1942. Said they would now operate at 27000'. Plenty high enough to combat the Japanese.
And the P-39 has what to do with this thread/topic?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes they did, in September 1942. Said they would now operate at 27000'. Plenty high enough to combat the Japanese.
Giving it a rest, I can't post anywhere anymore except the groundhog thread. Come on over and show me how my information is not credible.I've read (and downloaded) every document available on WW2AircraftPerformance.org on the P-39 and P-40 (and several other planes). I was asking ThomasP for a document link or doc number because I don't have any document on the specific test ThomasP seems to have referred to for the P-40F, and if it was available I'd like to add it to my archive. His numbers basically match my own from secondary sources, but I'd still like to find the primary source for that 1943 test if it exists. I also have flight manuals for every version of the P-40 (and for several other aircraft, including two versions of the P-39).
I am always interested in any primary sources I don't already have. I'm not interested in your interpretation or analysis, no offense but your subjective analysis is obviously not credible on this issue and your opinion is already very well known here. You are obviously deeply invested in a rehabilitation of this aircraft - as I've said many times, the combat histories speak for themselves in this regard. Good luck in your attempts but I'm not going to engage with you on P-39 vs anything.
I am not averse to thread drift and have often contributed to it myself many times but it's clearly time to give a rest to the P-39 hijacking, you are not helping your cause so to speak, in fact very much to the contrary.
Giving it a rest, I can't post anywhere anymore except the groundhog thread. Come on over and show me how my information is not credible.
That depends on your viewpoint. Since the P-51B was 30 MPH faster than the Spitfire with the same engine, and the Spitfire was considered "aerodynamic", mastering all the ins and outs of an airframe design and then producing it wasnt easy.Engines seemed to be the most difficult technology of military aircraft in WW2
I agree fully except it wasnt "engine technology" as a single entity but a huge range of technologies that go into an engine. All branches of metallurgy were pushed to the limits same with fuel technology, fluid dynamics, machining tech. Then you have the problem of taking the thing you have an example of and making them by the thousand starting yesterday if that's possible but today is the deadline, or you lost the race.The 30's and 40's saw an explosive (no pun intended) growth in engine technology.
The demand was driven both by the need for powering newer designs, but also by the opposition.
No sooner did you have a top performing engine, the enemy upgrades theirs.
So it was an ongoing process and the only greater challenge, was making enough engines to meet the airframe production.
I used the term "engine technology" as a catch-all, because all the contributing technologies that were involved would make for an extremely long list!I agree fully except it wasnt "engine technology" as a single entity but a huge range of technologies that go into an engine. All branches of metallurgy were pushed to the limits same with fuel technology, fluid dynamics, machining tech. Then you have the problem of taking the thing you have an example of and making them by the thousand starting yesterday if that's possible but today is the deadline, or you lost the race.
That is exactly what I was alluding to. The power output of the Centaurus was improved by developing a high copper alloy metal purely for its thermal conductivity for use in the cylinder head.I used the term "engine technology" as a catch-all, because all the contributing technologies that were involved would make for an extremely long list!
Like fuel delivery for example: perfecting the carburetor, then advancing to a form of throttle-body injection, then fuel injection all while working out a suitable delivery pressure and so on.
Add to that, finding the right fuel blend that will deliver optimum combustion while resisting detonation.
Then there were the alloys being developed for pistons, cylinder heads (and trying to find the perfect cooling fin configuration for radials), gear cases and other components, etc.
And these listed are a minute example...
Wasn't there also an improvement in fuel that allowed the increase from 1150hp to 1325hp?Allison changed their crankcases and/or cylinder blocks at least twice.
However I don't think Allison was doing their own aluminum casting.
The 2nd time they adopted a technique that had been developed by some artists for making sculptures.
It was these new castings (with a change in heat treatment of the crankshaft) that allowed the take-off power to go from 1150hp to 1325hp and still pass the 150 hour test.
Now if this technique is not adopted by Allison (or their suppliers) until the spring of 1942(?) where does that leave anybody who wanted to license Allison engines in 1940 or 41?
I have mentioned a number of times that Wright changed the crankcase on the R-1820 a number of times, The R-1820G, R-1820G-100, R-1820G-200 and R-1820H all used different crankcases (and cranks and other parts) They also changed the method of making fins on the 1300hp and up versions.
Not by using special gang saws but by fitting folded sheet metal fins into machined slots. It was somewhat more complicated than that but that is the basic idea.
If you license an early engine not only don't you get the latest "ideas" but your production machinery won't be able to build the newer versions.
Wasn't there also an improvement in fuel that allowed the increase from 1150hp to 1325hp?