Dont bring another "joe pilot" into it!
Edit I forgot the ballast in the tail which from memory was about 140Lb of lead.
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Dont bring another "joe pilot" into it!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?
He does, he just counters any fact with his opinion that the fact isnt true, or rarely true or demands another fact to score in his newly moved goal.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.
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.
That's the whole thing, the timing. The P-39 was available when the war started for the US, along with the P-40 and the F4F. That's what we had to go to war with in 1942. P-38s, P-47s and P-51s were in production but they didn't get into the fight until late '42 (P-38), spring '43 (P-47) and late '43 (Merlin P-51). And by the time the P-47s were getting into combat the best P-39 model (N) was already out of production. Hard to compare later planes with earlier planes.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.
I think they ran out of names, who would admit to flying a Dormouse?That was a great link. 26 Squadron flew a bunch of airplanes I've never knew of. De Haviland Hyena. Some other great names too. I forgot I was looking up the Mustang Mk I !
Top cover= P-40F.The P-40 was a very effective combat plane with good maneuverability, heavy firepower and rugged construction when it had top cover. Without top cover it was at a severe disadvantage.
P-39 Expert,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.
Great post but as far as the part in bold it wasnt in the UKs "gift" to give anything away. The UK had ordered it but it was nowhere near what they ordered and by 1941 it would be supplied on Lend Lease. There was no argument for the UK having it. It couldnt be used from the UK itself and in N Africa it added nothing to what was already there. In Russia anything was useful for something, like Gloster Gladiators on Malta. The Po-2 had a military use in Russia and it had a maximum speed on par with a front line fighters stall speed, such things can happen on a front thousands of miles long. The P-39 was used in UK to familiarise Russian pilots and engineers on its future use in the Soviet Union, just as pilots and ground crew went to Russia to familiarise Russians with the Hurricane in exactly the same period.P-39 Expert,
Context can be everything. The Russians didn't have a product that was as good as the '39, plus it was free, and the motor took pretty good abuse above the book numbers, and it was available in quantity, and it was free, and they fought to it's strengths (low altitude, short range). OF COURSE THEY LIKED IT. In the context of the battle plan they liked to operate in (low altitude, close to the front, over your own country) it was perfect. Did I mention it was free, and available? The rest of the Allies had availability of other "better" aircraft. So you have your choice of a good product (A) which is better than product (B). Which do you keep and which do you give away? It's a rhetorical question, you give away B. Which is exactly what the Brit's did. And the US. We were probably happy that the Russians liked an aircraft we didn't so there was no arguing over what we kept vice gave away via lend lease.
And since you are so hung up on test pilots, don't you think the Brits used theirs while evaluating the P39? Also, look at it in the context of the Brits. They had been flying combat before the P39 arrived, and they came to the conclusion that it was inferior to what they already had, or would soon have, and got rid of it.
Here we are 124 pages into ANOTHER thread on the P39, all because literally hundreds of guys couldn't figure out in WW2 what you have figured out 70+ years later. How could they have been so far off?
Cheers,
Biff
Great, naked pilot with 20lb parachute.
If a GI weighed 140 pounds, he was either suffering from dysentary or was a POW.
Anybody sharing in my experience of being relegated a status as below average, is recommended to join us in the movement for equal heights.
P-39 Expert,
The Russians didn't have a product that was as good as the '39, plus it was free, and the motor took pretty good abuse above the book numbers, and it was available in quantity, and it was free, and they fought to it's strengths (low altitude, short range). OF COURSE THEY LIKED IT. In the context of the battle plan they liked to operate in (low altitude, close to the front, over your own country) it was perfect. [...]
Cheers,
Biff
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.
Would have, could have, should have - actually what you say actually happened to a point when you look at the performance of V fighter command P-39 squadrons through the summer of 42 and some of the operations they were flying, they were definitely holding the line to a point. Holding the line however wasn't good enough. In the spirit of Groundhog day, I'll repeat, everything changed when the P-38 arrived.That's the whole thing, the timing. The P-39 was available when the war started for the US, along with the P-40 and the F4F. That's what we had to go to war with in 1942. P-38s, P-47s and P-51s were in production but they didn't get into the fight until late '42 (P-38), spring '43 (P-47) and late '43 (Merlin P-51). And by the time the P-47s were getting into combat the best P-39 model (N) was already out of production. Hard to compare later planes with earlier planes.
Seems to me that the AAF should have improved 1942 P-39 performance asap, especially since it was so easy to just remove some redundant/unnecessary items at forward combat bases. The improved climb and ceiling would have been of great use at NG and Guadalcanal. Weight was finally reduced by 650lbs at Guadalcanal in October '42, but by then AAF units knew they would shortly get P-38s.
With reduced weight it could have been used very effectively as high cover for P-40s. The P-40 was a very effective combat plane with good maneuverability, heavy firepower and rugged construction when it had top cover. Without top cover it was at a severe disadvantage. The Soviets used the P-39 and P-40 this way before they had acquired enough P-39s to form their own separate groups.
Clean P-39s and P-40s had about the same range, 600 and 650mi respectively per AHT and the calculations from the pilot's manuals made earlier in this thread. And both carried an external tank. The P-40 held 30gal more internal fuel but that was offset by the P-39's higher cruising speed and smaller allowance for takeoff and climb. The P-40 was regarded by AAF pilots as being slightly more maneuverable but rate of turn figures gave the P-39 a slight edge, so I would regard maneuverability as about the same. Faster, a good bit better climb and ceiling, and about the same range and maneuverability. Remember this is 1942 and the other planes are not yet available.
Only because the Americans wriggled out of the contract with the British, or was it the other way around.In the spirit of Groundhog day, I'll repeat, everything changed when the P-38 arrived.
Spitfire I weighed 5819lbs. Spitfire XIV weighed 8500lbs. Hardly double. Late war Spitfires did have 2000hp engines though.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?
As I understand it (possibly wrong), didn't the British, in an attempt to maintain engine commonality and avoid turbocharger complexity, wind up spec-ing a Lightning that couldn't be competitive in the ETO? IIRC, the British-speced machines were used stateside as trainers, as they were deemed unsuitable for combat.Only because the Americans wriggled out of the contract with the British, or was it the other way around.
Do you read anything? Why do you quote one of the heaviest versions of the Mk I? The prototype, ballasted for guns weighed 5,322Lbs, why dont you quote the last versions of the Spitfire/Seafire which were up to 12,000Lb loaded weight. And no, I am not going to get into dates and uses and name definitions. The first Spitfires only had circa 660BHP of thrust available at take off so the growth was bigger than at first sight.Spitfire I weighed 5819lbs. Spitfire XIV weighed 8500lbs. Hardly double. Late war Spitfires did have 2000hp engines though.