Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I havnt seen that the British specified it, all I have seen is that is all Bell had at the time, until they got their ducted system sorted out, the gasoline heater was modified as far as I can see following British comments that the cabin filled with smoke.Yes they did, see subsequent posts.
Yes I do get the vast majority (not all) my information from official AAF Wright Field tests (wwiiaircraftperformance.org). I tend to view combat reports and historical accounts as similar to victory claims, which often were exaggerated by 2 or 3 times. All those men telling the tales had agendas and personal biases and other differences from the truth, whether intentional or not. Chuck Yeager, yes I believe pretty much everything he says. Edwards Park, ditto. But Joe Pilot who thinks he got up to 30000' in a Spitfire 1 with a service ceiling of 35000' and a combat ceiling of 26000'? Not so much. Not calling Joe a liar, just saying that if what he said was true then it was one of the rarest of occurrences. Just my opinion.This is because you get all your information from charts and not from things like combat reports, historical accounts etc. Charts don't tell the whole story and are not always representative of real-world conditions. They are produced from test operations under controlled conditions for the purpose of recording standard performance data, but don't always represent every single aircraft, nor do they represent specific combat arenas, where conditions were frequently different on a daily basis.
You are beyond belief, a test pilot isnt Joe Pilot and any pilot deserves the same respect as Chuck Yaeger, who just happened to break the sound barrier in a Bell aircraft. Just as when the RAF leaned into France in 1941 escorts and attackers tried to outflank each other by climbing higher, that is a fact, your opinion doesnt matter because that is a fact, and there is no one telling tales with an agenda more than you.Yes I do get the vast majority (not all) my information from official AAF Wright Field tests (wwiiaircraftperformance.org). I tend to view combat reports and historical accounts as similar to victory claims, which often were exaggerated by 2 or 3 times. All those men telling the tales had agendas and personal biases and other differences from the truth, whether intentional or not. Chuck Yeager, yes I believe pretty much everything he says. Edwards Park, ditto. But Joe Pilot who thinks he got up to 30000' in a Spitfire 1 with a service ceiling of 35000' and a combat ceiling of 26000'? Not so much. Not calling Joe a liar, just saying that if what he said was true then it was one of the rarest of occurrences. Just my opinion.
Only in British hands in 1939 to 45.So that instrument on the panel called an altimeter was just a useless piece of equipment.
So that instrument on the panel called an altimeter was just a useless piece of equipment.
Any more groundhoggery?
You can, because you cant interfere with the narrative that the British had no reason to reject the P-39 but they did out of spite greed or incompetence, which is what this is all about. All sorts of interesting info has been accepted but nothing that interferes with that basic story.I took my plane to 11,000 ft before. I can't be trusted to say that though, because I'm just a joe pilot.
Unless perhaps Dutch Kindleberger had pictures of one of the BPC screwing a goat or something.
This really is beyond the pale. If any Brit made such a claim about an American pilot, they'd be kicked off the forum. Apparently all Brits are liars, cheats and all round dishonest operators.
Thanks for the advice. Now here's some advice for you.And, in return, you either ignore responses and refuse to answer questions, or you ignore evidence that contradicts your general statements....or you continue to restate opinions that have been debunked.
Here's two penn'orth of free advice for you:
1. Stop making general comments that aren't backed up by facts. For example, you said that no fighters got up to 30,000ft during the BoB. That's patently untrue and no amount of dissembling (e.g. making (again) unsupported claims about the number of sorties at that altitude) will change the fact that your statement was just plain wrong.
2. Stop viewing every engagement on this forum as an argument that you have to win. This thread would be much more productive if you would demonstrate a willingness to learn new facts rather than clinging to old opinions. You criticize others for not accepting your arguments and yet any view contrary to yours is met with the responses listed above. Rather than simply dismissing the contributions of others, maybe occasionally you might try a different tack...for example, perhaps thanking them for making you aware of something that you didn't know.
Your knowledge about the P-39 is impressive and I've learned a lot from your posts. In particular, some variants did have better performance than I'd previously accepted. But (and it's a BIG BUT) those better-performing variants arrived after other designs were already in service with at least as good if not better performance.
You dismiss facts with your opinion, you cringe at facts and have a hard time believing facts that dont fit your opinion. The latest is this nonsense about heaters, why would the British specify an American heater when they didnt on any other airplane anywhere ever? It is nonsense that you cling to because that is your narrative. The British did not specify that heater, Bell had nothing else, until they sorted their ducted system, until that time the USA had P-39s with the same heater, didnt they? So they must have specified them, didn't they? You have more than an agenda it is like a mission to convince the world that the P-39 could have done everything including bomber escort if it wasnt for the pesky British. Well if the P-39 of any model could have escorted US bombers why couldnt the Mustang MkI or the P-51A? Why were the Americans so stupid as to put a Merlin in a P-51 when they had the answer there already?Thanks for the advice. Now here's some advice for you.
Almost every comment I make is backed up by facts, either from wwiiaircraftperformance.org or other Govt/AAF source or AHT or Vees for Victory or some other original source reference like that. While I am sure that a very few Spitfires, Hurricanes and 109Es actually made it to 30000', I am also sure that was a very rare occurrence and certainly not something that happened daily, much less as a significant part of the day to day BoB. German bombers (He111, Ju88, Do217) operated between 16000' and 20000' and not much higher than that at all. That's what reference material on the BoB says and that is borne out by published performance figures on those planes. The LW fighters were instructed to stay as close as possible to the bombers and even the AAF escorts in 1944 were not to get more than 3000' above the bomber stream. 109E escorts had a combat ceiling (1000fpm) of about 27000' but were instructed to stay much closer to their bombers than 7000' to 13000' above. Whether they could even get to 30000' is questionable. And there is no way that a 109E with a 550lb bomb can get to 30000'. Maybe they could fly higher than the bombers, but they aren't getting to 30000' with the extra weight and drag of that bomb. No reference says they got to 30000', just that they flew higher than the bombers. Now maybe a special LW reconnaissance plane could get near 30000' and maybe a Spitfire I tried it's best to intercept, but that was not even a daily occurrence and was still very rare. Very few of my statements are just plain wrong and when they are I admit it.
I don't view every engagement as an argument that has to be won. I do quote a lot of published facts and try to stay away from personal accounts (heresay) and when people disagree with my statements I do try to reiterate the facts that I have posted and try to show them why I believe those facts are correct. I post very very few opinions and when I do I try to state that in my posts, "this is just my opinion". I am always courteous even when other posters are not and I have hardly ever criticized anyone on this board even when they are calling me every name in the book. I know some (most) (all) of my posts are unpopular but they are based on facts that disagree with long held and quoted views. There is newer factual information (wwiiaircraft) that has been made available recently (2012) that refutes a lot of what we have been told for the last 75 years. It's wrong and it needs to be updated.
Finally "but those better-performing (P-39) variants arrived after other designs were already in service" is the main myth that I am trying to expose. The P-39 was available at the beginning of the U.S. involvement in WWII. And the much improved models with uprated engines (N) were available from the fall of 1942 just as the P-38F/G was entering combat and well before the P-47, P-51B/C/D, F4U and Hellcat entered combat. Performance was on par with the 109G and FW190A and vastly superior to the A6M2, A6M5 and Ki-43. These are facts as borne out by Wright Field tests and results from the main users, the Soviets. It was one of the best planes around in 1943. That's all I'm saying. But every time I state some facts from test results or other references lots of people on here act like I have insulted their mother or called Uncle Sam a communist, just because it doesn't agree with what they have read or heard. Comparing airplanes has to be done by date, or you are just comparing a SPAD with an F-22. Rant over.
Is that the British sea level or other, the British are known to talk about tides which means the fools dont believe that the sea is level, they also use this sea-unlevelness to refuse to pay up for contracts, FACT!By the way, was that 30K AGL or ASL?
Asking for a friend.
Thanks for the advice. Now here's some advice for you.
Almost every comment I make is backed up by facts, either from wwiiaircraftperformance.org or other Govt/AAF source or AHT or Vees for Victory or some other original source reference like that. While I am sure that a very few Spitfires, Hurricanes and 109Es actually made it to 30000', I am also sure that was a very rare occurrence and certainly not something that happened daily, much less as a significant part of the day to day BoB. German bombers (He111, Ju88, Do217) operated between 16000' and 20000' and not much higher than that at all. That's what reference material on the BoB says and that is borne out by published performance figures on those planes. The LW fighters were instructed to stay as close as possible to the bombers and even the AAF escorts in 1944 were not to get more than 3000' above the bomber stream. 109E escorts had a combat ceiling (1000fpm) of about 27000' but were instructed to stay much closer to their bombers than 7000' to 13000' above. Whether they could even get to 30000' is questionable. And there is no way that a 109E with a 550lb bomb can get to 30000'. Maybe they could fly higher than the bombers, but they aren't getting to 30000' with the extra weight and drag of that bomb. No reference says they got to 30000', just that they flew higher than the bombers. Now maybe a special LW reconnaissance plane could get near 30000' and maybe a Spitfire I tried it's best to intercept, but that was not even a daily occurrence and was still very rare. Very few of my statements are just plain wrong and when they are I admit it.
I don't view every engagement as an argument that has to be won. I do quote a lot of published facts and try to stay away from personal accounts (heresay) and when people disagree with my statements I do try to reiterate the facts that I have posted and try to show them why I believe those facts are correct. I post very very few opinions and when I do I try to state that in my posts, "this is just my opinion". I am always courteous even when other posters are not and I have hardly ever criticized anyone on this board even when they are calling me every name in the book. I know some (most) (all) of my posts are unpopular but they are based on facts that disagree with long held and quoted views. There is newer factual information (wwiiaircraft) that has been made available recently (2012) that refutes a lot of what we have been told for the last 75 years. It's wrong and it needs to be updated.
Finally "but those better-performing (P-39) variants arrived after other designs were already in service" is the main myth that I am trying to expose. The P-39 was available at the beginning of the U.S. involvement in WWII. And the much improved models with uprated engines (N) were available from the fall of 1942 just as the P-38F/G was entering combat and well before the P-47, P-51B/C/D, F4U and Hellcat entered combat. Performance was on par with the 109G and FW190A and vastly superior to the A6M2, A6M5 and Ki-43. These are facts as borne out by Wright Field tests and results from the main users, the Soviets. It was one of the best planes around in 1943. That's all I'm saying. But every time I state some facts from test results or other references lots of people on here act like I have insulted their mother or called Uncle Sam a communist, just because it doesn't agree with what they have read or heard. Comparing airplanes has to be done by date, or you are just comparing a SPAD with an F-22. Rant over.
Thanks for the advice. Now here's some advice for you.
Almost every comment I make is backed up by facts, either from wwiiaircraftperformance.org or other Govt/AAF source or AHT or Vees for Victory or some other original source reference like that. While I am sure that a very few Spitfires, Hurricanes and 109Es actually made it to 30000', I am also sure that was a very rare occurrence and certainly not something that happened daily, much less as a significant part of the day to day BoB. German bombers (He111, Ju88, Do217) operated between 16000' and 20000' and not much higher than that at all. That's what reference material on the BoB says and that is borne out by published performance figures on those planes. The LW fighters were instructed to stay as close as possible to the bombers and even the AAF escorts in 1944 were not to get more than 3000' above the bomber stream. 109E escorts had a combat ceiling (1000fpm) of about 27000' but were instructed to stay much closer to their bombers than 7000' to 13000' above. Whether they could even get to 30000' is questionable. And there is no way that a 109E with a 550lb bomb can get to 30000'. Maybe they could fly higher than the bombers, but they aren't getting to 30000' with the extra weight and drag of that bomb. No reference says they got to 30000', just that they flew higher than the bombers. Now maybe a special LW reconnaissance plane could get near 30000' and maybe a Spitfire I tried it's best to intercept, but that was not even a daily occurrence and was still very rare. Very few of my statements are just plain wrong and when they are I admit it.
I don't view every engagement as an argument that has to be won. I do quote a lot of published facts and try to stay away from personal accounts (heresay) and when people disagree with my statements I do try to reiterate the facts that I have posted and try to show them why I believe those facts are correct. I post very very few opinions and when I do I try to state that in my posts, "this is just my opinion". I am always courteous even when other posters are not and I have hardly ever criticized anyone on this board even when they are calling me every name in the book. I know some (most) (all) of my posts are unpopular but they are based on facts that disagree with long held and quoted views. There is newer factual information (wwiiaircraft) that has been made available recently (2012) that refutes a lot of what we have been told for the last 75 years. It's wrong and it needs to be updated.
Finally "but those better-performing (P-39) variants arrived after other designs were already in service" is the main myth that I am trying to expose. The P-39 was available at the beginning of the U.S. involvement in WWII. And the much improved models with uprated engines (N) were available from the fall of 1942 just as the P-38F/G was entering combat and well before the P-47, P-51B/C/D, F4U and Hellcat entered combat. Performance was on par with the 109G and FW190A and vastly superior to the A6M2, A6M5 and Ki-43. These are facts as borne out by Wright Field tests and results from the main users, the Soviets. It was one of the best planes around in 1943. That's all I'm saying. But every time I state some facts from test results or other references lots of people on here act like I have insulted their mother or called Uncle Sam a communist, just because it doesn't agree with what they have read or heard. Comparing airplanes has to be done by date, or you are just comparing a SPAD with an F-22. Rant over.
Quite right - let me be more specific, then:Is that the British sea level or other, the British are known to talk about tides which means the fools dont believe that the sea is level, they also use this sea-unlevelness to refuse to pay up for contracts, FACT!
Why were the Americans so stupid as to put a Merlin in a P-51 when they had the answer there already?