Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained)

[SaparotRob]

Could shifting the IFF into the pilot's seat correct the balance issues?

 

[pbehn]

Could shifting the IFF into the pilot's seat correct the balance issues?

Why not take the wings off and mount the P-39 behind the pilot of a P-47? We need novel solutions to this impasse?

 

[SaparotRob]

Why not take the wings off and mount the P-39 behind the pilot of a P-47? We need novel solutions to this impasse?

Brilliant!

 

[pbehn]

Brilliant!

We need to get a solution, this has been going on almost as long as the USA was at war. By 1942 the P-47 was being introduced, whether it had 8 x 0,5mgs 12 of the same or non at all would make very little difference to its tested performance. All fighters got heavier for all sorts of reasons. The Spitfire doubled in weight during the war but was still light compared to a P-51 or P-47, yet still we are discussing the weight of a pilot and an IFFing radio on the P-39. Everything is a trade off and weight didnt matter if it could be coped with and justified. The British used two planes with the Allison engine the P-40 and P-51(as Mustangs and P-51s), both were heavier than the P-39, which they didnt use, because it was rubbish. Much of the discussion is trending to a Reno race with a stipulation that the pilot has a Colt 45 to qualify in the "military" category. An aeroplane with no radio, no armour, and no guns with a crap engine isnt a military machine.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Well, on paper, the P-39 is faster, has a better climb rate, and a heavier offensive battery than a P-40.
But, the P-40 rolled better, held a turn better, and could take more punishment. Plus it could carry more external armament. And had better range. And was easier to service. There is a reason that P-39 equipped units in the field clamored for better aircraft. By the time better P-39s became available, P38s, P-47s, and P-51s were being produced in quantity. As to the USSR, the P-39 was the best on hand when it was introduced there. It was faster and more maneuverable, and had better pilot visibility, radios, etc., than the early LaGGs, MiGs, and even Yaks, and head and shoulders above the I-153s and I-16s the Russian pilots had been flying.

 

[GrauGeist]

Average American man in the Army in WWII was 5'8" and weighed 140lbs. Fast food hadn't been invented yet.

The average American GI was much heavier than that.

Also, remember the cartoons where the some poor bastard was peeling a pile of potatoes?
Yeah...that was real.

C-Rations contained:
Meat stew with vegetables
Meat stew with beans
Meat stew with vegetables hash
Spaghetti in meat sauce
Pork and beans
Chopped ham, eggs and potatoes
Franks and beans
Meat and noodles
Pork and rice
Chicken and vegetables
Ham and Lima beans

Plus the K and D rations were aimed toward high calorie intake.

And these were just field issue, the mess menu was also geared for high caloric intake.

If a GI weighed 140 pounds, he was either suffering from dysentary or was a POW.

 

[ThomasP]

re height and weight of US soldiers in WWII, skivies only

The average height/weight of the US soldier in 1918 was 5' 7.5" / 154 lbs
The average height/weight of the US recruit in 1943 was 5' 8.1" / 152 lbs

 

[GrauGeist]

re height and weight of US soldiers in WWII, skivies only

The average height/weight of the average US soldier in 1918 was 6'7.5"/154 lbs
The average height/weight of the average US recruit in 1943 was 6'8.1"/152 lbs

The US was still locked in a depression and the majority of recruits were going to eat better than they did in civilian life.

Many of the recruits were depression orphans seeking a way out, too.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Umm. Did you mean to express those heights in inches, because it looks like you threw in an apostrophe, which makes the average height taller than current professional basketball rosters.

 

[ThomasP]

Oops!
Thanks Greg Boeser. You are correct, I meant to change the inches to feet (') and inches ("). I have corrected my post.

 

[wuzak]

Regarding engine cooling, most of the early AAF models (P-38F/G, P-47D, P-51A/B) didn't meet cooling requirements as noted in the Wright Field tests either, just like the P-39. This was common until development of automatic cooling flaps in 1944. P-39 never got these.

Apparently the P-39C had semi automatic cooling flaps. At high speed the airflow pushed them shut.
There is also a difference between a plane that has trouble cooling in a long hard climb and one that overheats in high speed level flight.

No auto cooling flaps. Spring loaded, airstream pushed them back partly closed.

Whose fault was it that the P-39 didn't get automatic cooling flaps?

And are you certain that the automatic cooling flaps weren't incorporated until 1944? Surely they were in use before then, particularly in aircraft with air cooled engines?


btw, the Spitfire had 2 position cooling flaps for much, if not all, of its service life. The Spitfire III was to have a much improved radiator system, but that was never adopted for production aircraft, due to production being given priority.

 

[pbehn]

Well, on paper, the P-39 is faster, has a better climb rate, and a heavier offensive battery than a P-40.
But, the P-40 rolled better, held a turn better, and could take more punishment. Plus it could carry more external armament. And had better range. And was easier to service. There is a reason that P-39 equipped units in the field clamored for better aircraft. By the time better P-39s became available, P38s, P-47s, and P-51s were being produced in quantity. As to the USSR, the P-39 was the best on hand when it was introduced there. It was faster and more maneuverable, and had better pilot visibility, radios, etc., than the early LaGGs, MiGs, and even Yaks, and head and shoulders above the I-153s and I-16s the Russian pilots had been flying.

Most important, the P-40 was already in service with few problems with the RAF in N Africa before a P-39 was unpacked in UK, by the time the P-39 was sorted the P-40 was also sorted and being used increasingly as a fighter bomber.

 

[Just Schmidt]

re height and weight of US soldiers in WWII, skivies only

The average height/weight of the US soldier in 1918 was 5' 7.5" / 154 lbs
The average height/weight of the US recruit in 1943 was 5' 8.1" / 152 lbs

As one who stands about two turds and a half above ground fully stretched, I strongly protest against this recent fixation on height, first disguised as ceiling of aircraft but now blatantly heightist and clearly demeaning of us who are vertically challenged.

Anybody sharing in my experience of being relegated a status as below average, is recommended to join us in the movement for equal heights.

 

[pbehn]

As one who stands about two turds and a half above ground fully stretched, I strongly protest against this recent fixation on height, first disguised as ceiling of aircraft but now blatantly heightist and clearly demeaning of us who are vertically challenged.

Anybody sharing in my experience of being relegated a status as below average, is recommended to join us in the movement for equal heights.

In my working life there were more jobs that required small people than tall ones. Eric Brown thought that he survived the Dh 108 going into rapid oscillation because he was small, it broke Geoffrey de Havilland's neck doing the same.

 

[rochie]

As one who stands about two turds and a half above ground fully stretched, I strongly protest against this recent fixation on height, first disguised as ceiling of aircraft but now blatantly heightist and clearly demeaning of us who are vertically challenged.

Anybody sharing in my experience of being relegated a status as below average, is recommended to join us in the movement for equal heights.

here, here !

 

[special ed]

June 1959 I entered the USAF weighing 145 pounds and standing 5 feet 11 inches. I'm now 218 Pounds and 5 feet 9 1/2 inches. My, how I've grown. My long time best friend and fellow aviation nut, last weighed close to 250 pounds and stood 5 feet 6 or 7 inches and was once not hired for a freight flying job because the manager said they could haul more freight with a lighter pilot. I told him he should have said to consider him as 6 foot 3.

 

[P-39 Expert]

We need to get a solution, this has been going on almost as long as the USA was at war. By 1942 the P-47 was being introduced, whether it had 8 x 0,5mgs 12 of the same or non at all would make very little difference to its tested performance. All fighters got heavier for all sorts of reasons. The Spitfire doubled in weight during the war but was still light compared to a P-51 or P-47, yet still we are discussing the weight of a pilot and an IFFing radio on the P-39. Everything is a trade off and weight didnt matter if it could be coped with and justified. The British used two planes with the Allison engine the P-40 and P-51(as Mustangs and P-51s), both were heavier than the P-39, which they didnt use, because it was rubbish. Much of the discussion is trending to a Reno race with a stipulation that the pilot has a Colt 45 to qualify in the "military" category. An aeroplane with no radio, no armour, and no guns with a crap engine isnt a military machine.

P-47 didn't see combat until April 1943. I doubt the Spitfire doubled in weight but horsepower roughly doubled also. Weight did matter when the engine only developed 1150hp. Tell the Soviets that the P-39 was rubbish. And it had a radio, and armor plate/glass, and large caliber guns, and the engine wasn't crap. It was definitely a military machine. As long as you keep saying obviously false statements like this I will keep disagreeing with you.

 

[pbehn]

P-47 didn't see combat until April 1943. I doubt the Spitfire doubled in weight but horsepower roughly doubled also. Weight did matter when the engine only developed 1150hp. Tell the Soviets that the P-39 was rubbish. And it had a radio, and armor plate/glass, and large caliber guns, and the engine wasn't crap. It was definitely a military machine. As long as you keep saying obviously false statements like this I will keep disagreeing with you.

Instead of pondering and doubting why not look something up. Everything you say the P-39 had you want to take off, armour guns radios the lot. Thats why I havnt a clue what your point is.

 

[SaparotRob]

I commend P-39 Expert. No joke. Regardless of position or argument, he has always been civil and polite no matter how heated or derisive comments got.
I hope I can do as well if I'm involved in a controversial discussion.

 

[buffnut453]

I doubt the Spitfire doubled in weight but horsepower roughly doubled also.

You can doubt that the Spitfire doubled in weight but why don't you get off your backside and check it for yourself instead of simply questioning other people's statements and refusing to back down?

Jeffrey Quill's book on the Spitfire definitely made the point that the Spitfire doubled in weight during its lifetime. Oh, and Jeffrey Quill was a test pilot...so maybe you'll trust his statements? Or, since he was British, does that automatically remove him as a trustworthy source?