Never mind him. Tell us about the mayor's daughter!
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Never mind him. Tell us about the mayor's daughter!Hey, I think I KNOW that cop you're talking about above ...
I heard it was all about stretching exercises to improve cheek elasticity. The more tongue you can get in, the better. Chipmunk DNA helps, too, they say.I really got to hand it to a couple of our posters. I try to come up with patently ridiculous claims for an absurd position and I run out of steam. I don't know how they do it.
And why do you keep bringing up the P-39
Why do WE keep bringing up the P39!!And why do you keep bringing up the P-39 when the first production was not until spring of 1941? Keep trolling, I'll always take the bait.
We can discuss the P-39 in general discussion without becoming overly obsessed with it.And why do you keep bringing up the P-39 when the first production was not until spring of 1941?
The world wonders.
Are you saying the additional weight came from structural strengthening sometime after production of the C model in time for the D model and P-400? According to your P-39C manual empty weight was 5016lbs. The P-400 weighed 5550lbs empty. That's a difference of 534lbs. 240lbs was the self sealing fuel tanks. The book "Cobra" shows "minor empty and useful load changes" in Jan '41 and "engine and fixed equipment weight increase" in June '41 with production beginning in July, but those changes only account for 165lbs. I don't know where the additional 129lbs came from. Maybe it WAS structural bracing.Sometimes it leads to extra digging.
I think I know were part of the P-39/P-400 weight escalation came from. Just a theory.
The P-39C was rated at 7.5 positive Gs load factor and 3.75 negative and this was at 6662lbs (gross weight performance figures were calculated at) While the standard service load factor for US pursuit planes was supposed to be plus 8 and negative 4 (with plus 12 and negative 6(?) being the ultimate load factor).
The P-39C needed self sealing tanks at the least plus a few other desired upgrades.
At 7100lbs (full fuel and oil tanks and few minor items of equipment) a P-39C airframe would have been good for a ball park stress load of 7.04.
Perhaps this was too low for the USAAC?
Move the .30 cal guns to the wings (and add two more) is really going to push things over the top.
I have no idea how much structural bracing was needed to get the P-39D/P-400 up to the desired 8 G service load factor but I believe the change was made.
A chart provided by Neal Stirling ; Structure weight data and drag analysis.
Lists the Aircobra as having an ultimate load factor of 12 at 7400lbs. Ultimate load of 12 was the result of multiplying the service load of 8 by a safety factor of 1.5.
Bell had tried to build a light weight fighter but even before the P-39C the weight had escalated beyond the original calculations.
This was certainly not unheard of.
The sales Brochure for the Curtiss Hawk 75 list two different load factors for the Cyclone powered and Twin Wasp powered versions with the heavier Twin Wasp powered model having the lower load factor. Brochure states the Twin Wasp powered model could be provided at the standard 12 G ultimate load factor at additional cost and weight.
What were the 25 airframe modifications that grounded all P-39s delivered to UK and meant only 4 were ever in operational service?Are you saying the additional weight came from structural strengthening sometime after production of the C model in time for the D model and P-400? According to your P-39C manual empty weight was 5016lbs. The P-400 weighed 5550lbs empty. That's a difference of 534lbs. 240lbs was the self sealing fuel tanks. The book "Cobra" shows "minor empty and useful load changes" in Jan '41 and "engine and fixed equipment weight increase" in June '41 with production beginning in July, but those changes only account for 165lbs. I don't know where the additional 129lbs came from. Maybe it WAS structural bracing.
Well thats closer than you normally get to an answer. Normally if you make a double post, you have to edit it to say "double post".Double post
Please give up on trying to educate me. I already have way more education than I can ever use. Thank you.So I guess those dispatches from Parks and Mallory were exaggerated? But wait, if I recall both Parks and Mallory were "just pilots" (Or at least they began their careers that way)
Even if one bomb landed on a laundromat in the middle of London, woke up a few hundred people, dispatched fireman and alerted air defenses, an objective was achieved. But wait, you read differently while sitting in your lounge chair
I would give this a rest. I'm trying not to get into this too much and have given up trying to educate you on things that I have actually done, (hell, you ignore our resident F-15 pilot) but you're really making a fool out of yourself.
Yea - it showsPlease give up on trying to educate me. I already have way more education than I can ever use.
I'll repeat because you're sooooo educated the brain cells might have had a hic-up...Your reply was to my post quoting Keith Park from post #2189. Do you honestly feel that a single seat fighter could bomb with any accuracy from those heights? Could they hit (or even come close to) a specific target?
Christ you really do talk some crap, if you drop bombs you hit things, I have already posted that two hospitals were hit and elsewhere 13 people were killed by a random bomb. Did you not read Parks instruction, the Spitfires on patrol were to shield the Hurricanes and Spitfires climbing behind.Your reply was to my post quoting Keith Park from post #2189. Do you honestly feel that a single seat fighter could bomb with any accuracy from those heights? Could they hit (or even come close to) a specific target?
And what is likely to happen to those Spitfires climbing from 20000' up to even 25000' where the fighter bombers were, not to mention the reported 30000' where their escort was? In the four minutes that they have to intercept don't you think that those planes or the escort above will see the Spitfires crawling up at less than 500fpm (vertical speed about 5.5mph, a little faster than walking). Aren't the escorts going to bounce the Spitfires from above? Seems like the ideal situation for the escorts, or even the FBs.
That seems crazy to me and I don't think the British were crazy. Not much interception going on there in my opinion. They weren't about to waste finite resources chasing fighter bombers at altitudes where any bombing accuracy at all was pure luck. Not then there are bomber formations at 20000' and under.
Please give up on trying to educate me. I already have way more education than I can ever use. Thank you.
I remember that time when the world wondered where Task Force 34 was.
That's the problem, most bombs dropped from only 20000' by bombardiers flying medium bombers in formation didn't hit anything. Farmland, a lake, absolutely nothing of importance. You're taking one example of a bomb that happened to randomly hit a hospital when you have no idea what the bomber was actually aiming at. Formations of bombers had woeful hit rates and you think one fighter at 25000' will come anywhere near his target? Seriously?Christ you really do talk some crap, if you drop bombs you hit things, I have already posted that two hospitals were hit and elsewhere 13 people were killed by a random bomb. Did you not read Parks instruction, the Spitfires on patrol were to shield the Hurricanes and Spitfires climbing behind.
You are incapable of reading absorbing or assimilating anything, thats why you never have no answer to anything but bang on day and night about the weight of am IFF transponder. Your post shows you havnt a clue, they were not on a cliff face or a ladder, they were in 3 dimensions, so time and separation are part of the discussion.
Now how about some answers to questions, not any more of your daft ill informed and considered opinions and doubts?
You have already been posted the normal attack procedure for Jabo pilots this was obtained from pilots shot down by the RAF who did "take the bait". You consider you already have too much education, so you dont read anything at all, that is why talking to you is like arguing with pound of mince.That's the problem, most bombs dropped from only 20000' by bombardiers flying medium bombers in formation didn't hit anything. Farmland, a lake, absolutely nothing of importance. You're taking one example of a bomb that happened to randomly hit a hospital when you have no idea what the bomber was actually aiming at. Formations of bombers had woeful hit rates and you think one fighter at 25000' will come anywhere near his target? Seriously?