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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
Post 2167 by Flyboy

By June 1941, the War Ministry had cause to reconsider their earlier aircraft specifications based on experience gathered in the Battle of Britain and The Blitz.[63] British displeasure with the Lockheed order came to the fore in July, and on 5 August 1941 they modified the contract such that 143 aircraft would be delivered as previously ordered, to be known as "Lightning (Mark) I," and 524 would be upgraded to US-standard P-38E specifications with a top speed of 415 mph (668 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,100 m) guaranteed, to be called "Lightning II" for British service.[63] Later that summer an RAF test pilot reported back from Burbank with a poor assessment of the "tail flutter" situation, and the British cancelled all but three of the 143 Lightning Is.[63] As a loss of approximately US$15M was involved, Lockheed reviewed their contracts and decided to hold the British to the original order. Negotiations grew bitter and stalled.[63] Everything changed after the 7 December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor after which the United States government seized some 40 of the Model 322s for West Coast defense;[64] subsequently all British Lightnings were delivered to the USAAF starting in January 1942. The USAAF lent the RAF three of the aircraft, which were delivered by sea in March 1942[65] and were test flown no earlier than May[66] at Cunliffe-Owen Aircraft Swaythling, the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment and the Royal Aircraft Establishment.[63] The A&AEE example was unarmed, lacked turbochargers and restricted to 300 mph (480 km/h); though the undercarriage was praised and flight on one engine described as comfortable.[67] These three were subsequently returned to the USAAF; one in December 1942 and the others in July 1943.[65] Of the remaining 140 Lightning Is, 19 were not modified and were designated by the USAAF as RP-322-I ('R' for 'Restricted', because non-counter-rotating propellers were considered more dangerous on takeoff), while 121 were converted to non-turbo-supercharged counter-rotating V-1710F-2 engines and designated P-322-II. All 121 were used as advanced trainers; a few were still serving that role in 1945.[66] A few RP-322s were later used as test modification platforms such as for smoke-laying canisters. The RP-322 was a fairly fast aircraft below 16,000 ft (4,900 m) and well-behaved as a trainer

I think most of this came from Bodie's book The Lockheed P-38 Lightning: The Definitive Story of Lockheed's P-38 Fighter


I think if what our "expert" says was really true, Bell "would have" followed suit. Maybe Lockheed had better Lawyers?
 
Last edited:
Spitfire I weighed 5819lbs. Spitfire XIV weighed 8500lbs. Hardly double. Late war Spitfires did have 2000hp engines though.

Why are you picking out the MkXIV? The Spitfire design had considerable further development beyond that mark.

For example, the Spitfire Mk.24 had a max weight at take-off of 12,150 lbs (Source: Pilot's Notes - https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/pilots-notes-for-spitfire-22-24-pdf.613338/). There's also the Seafire FR Mk 47 had a max weight of 12,900 lbs (Source: "Supermarine Seafire F.XV, F.VXII, F.45, F/FR.46, F/FR.47 and Seafang" by Kevin Darling, p.44).

So, YES, the later versions of the Spitfire (and Seafire) had more than double the all-up weight of the MkI. Jeffrey Quill was correct in his statement.

Please, stop the cherry-picking nonsense and start learning.
 
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.
I thought superchargers weren't allowed to be shipped to foreign powers so the "castrated Lightning" came to be.
 
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.
Prototypes don't fly combat missions, and I looked all over but couldn't find a 12000lb Spitfire.
 
Why are you picking out the MkXIV? The Spitfire design had considerable further development beyond that mark.

For example, the Spitfire Mk.24 had a max weight at take-off of 12,150 lbs (Source: Pilot's Notes - https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/pilots-notes-for-spitfire-22-24-pdf.613338/). There's also the Seafire FR Mk 47 had a max weight of 12,900 lbs (Source: "Supermarine Seafire F.XV, F.VXII, F.45, F/FR.46, F/FR.47 and Seafang" by Kevin Darling, p.44).

So, YES, the later versions of the Spitfire (and Seafire) had more than double the all-up weight of the MkI. Jeffrey Quill was correct in his statement.

Please, stop the cherry-picking nonsense and start learning.
Congratulations, you found one mark that weighed over 12000lbs with full external fuel that first flew a full year AFTER the end of WW2. WW2 Spitfires weighed around 8500lbs max with no external tanks. Who's cherry picking now?
 
Congratulations, you found one mark that weighed over 12000lbs with full external fuel that first flew a full year AFTER the end of WW2. WW2 Spitfires weighed around 8500lbs max with no external tanks. Who's cherry picking now?

You're the one who's adding the caveat of the end of the WW2. My statement was that the Spitfire doubled it's max all-up weight during the lifetime of the design. My statement is correct. Now (yet again) you're trying to duck out of being proven wrong.

As for WW2 Spitfires, how about the PR Mk XIX with an all-up weight of 10,450lb? Or even the Mk 22 which flew before the end of the war with a max weight of 11,350lb? Both considerably more than 8,500 lbs!

For once can you just admit you were wrong?
 
Prototypes don't fly combat missions, and I looked all over but couldn't find a 12000lb Spitfire.
I knew you would start this, you have been given weights of the Spitfire range, the weight you quoted was of a Spitfire with armour gun heating CS props etc etc etc all imposed by the client after the initial contract. The issue is that the client was always demanding more stuff which added weight. The prototype P-39 was used for combat data and you have whinged whined muled and puked about everything the British asked to be put on the P-39, which was put on the Spitfire. The P-39 was also tried out for carrier operations by the British and the USA both didnt proceed with it.
 
Last edited:
You're the one who's adding the caveat of the end of the WW2. My statement was that the Spitfire doubled it's max all-up weight during the lifetime of the design. My statement is correct. Now (yet again) you're trying to duck out of being proven wrong.

As for WW2 Spitfires, how about the PR Mk XIX with an all-up weight of 10,450lb? Or even the Mk 22 which flew before the end of the war with a max weight of 11,350lb? Both considerably more than 8,500 lbs!

For once can you just admit you were wrong?
I think we have been here before. I doubt it happened, it didnt happen very often, it didnt happen in a certain time frame. Complete pettyfoggery and groundhoggery.
 
I think we have been here before. I doubt it happened, it didnt happen very often, it didnt happen in a certain time frame. Complete pettyfoggery and groundhoggery.

Yeah...I know. He was proven wrong about the British demanding an "unnecessary" "additional" cockpit heater. He was proven wrong about the requirement for nose armour for the gearbox. He was proven wrong about the "useless" 30cals (which the USAAF didn't remove from many operational fighters in a combat zone). He was proven wrong about BoB fighters being hardly able to reach 30,000ft. He was proven wrong on his statement that Britain unnecessarily increased the weight of the P-400 to weasel out of the contract (Britain accepted the type despite a specially prepared airframe still failing to reach the minimum performance figures).

He refused to accept defeat on any of those topics so it's entirely unsurprising that he lacks the grace to admit he was wrong about the Spitfire's incredible (unprecedented) growth during it's lifetime.

Bear in mind that the Spit Mk 24 could reach 30,000 ft in about 8 mins despite that increase in weight compared to the earlier marks.
 
Last edited:
Bear in mind that the Spit Mk 24 could reach 30,000 ft in about 8 mins despite that increase in weight compared to the earlier marks.
Which proves all this BS about weight and rate of climb is BS. How much did a EE Lightning or Saturn V rocket weigh? It isnt a question of just weight, it is thrust lift drag etc.
 
There are formulas for estimating rate of climb for an aircraft that has been tested and has a weight, horsepower, and rate of climb and you want to change one of them. But, changing more than one usually requires a new test for an accurate answer. still, if HP goes up by 150 and weight only changes by maybe a few %, the estimate will be close to real.
 
There are formulas for estimating rate of climb for an aircraft that has been tested and has a weight, horsepower, and rate of climb and you want to change one of them. But, changing more than one usually requires a new test for an accurate answer. still, if HP goes up by 150 and weight only changes by maybe a few %, the estimate will be close to real.
If you can keep the engine cool enough to keep working and be ok to do it again and again until the next service.
 
Congratulations, you found one mark that weighed over 12000lbs with full external fuel that first flew a full year AFTER the end of WW2. WW2 Spitfires weighed around 8500lbs max with no external tanks. Who's cherry picking now?
Actually it was two marks, why do you say it is one? Why is internal and external weight a criteria, it is weight, isnt it? You have used external stores when advocating the qualities of the P-39. So, to your question about who is cherry picking, you are, it is all you ever do. It doesnt matter if it is one Marque or even one aeroplane had a loaded weight of over 12,000Lbs it is a FACT, so your doubts were once again WRONG. In fact the weight of the Spitfire all up weight more than doubled from prototype to final versions and the prototype was ballasted for 8 Mgs not some piddling, play-at-it, P-39 style of armament and that was from 1937.
 
Yeah...I know. He was proven wrong about the British demanding an "unnecessary" "additional" cockpit heater. He was proven wrong about the requirement for nose armour for the gearbox. He was proven wrong about the "useless" 30cals (which the USAAF didn't remove from many operational fighters in a combat zone). He was proven wrong about BoB fighters being hardly able to reach 30,000ft. He was proven wrong on his statement that Britain unnecessarily increased the weight of the P-400 to weasel out of the contract (Britain accepted the type despite a specially prepared airframe still failing to reach the minimum performance figures).

He refused to accept defeat on any of those topics so it's entirely unsurprising that he lacks the grace to admit he was wrong about the Spitfire's incredible (unprecedented) growth during it's lifetime.

Bear in mind that the Spit Mk 24 could reach 30,000 ft in about 8 mins despite that increase in weight compared to the earlier marks.

In a phrase, the difference between a -39 and a Spit: growth potential.

I believe that is why the P-39 was cast aside. Granted, the P-39 grew into the P-63, but I think it's more than fair to point out that over its lifetime, the Spit grew even further beyond what was already the superior design.

The Spitfire's design allowed for more useful upgrading, keeping the fighter relevant through the end of the war.
 
Found this. I think it is a russia report on the corkscrewing behaviour of the p-39. Perhaps to some use in this endless tall tail.
 

Attachments

  • p39 airacobra parachute cork screw test.pdf
    93.2 MB · Views: 73
1626087191610.png
 
Spitfire I weighed 5819lbs. Spitfire XIV weighed 8500lbs. Hardly double. Late war Spitfires did have 2000hp engines though.
Yes, the first production Spit I weighted full loaded 5,819 lbs. Did you notice that British used 200 lbs for pilot and parachute? According to you that is too much, or do you believe British were better fed than US citizens in 1939 - 41? BTW, what is your source for your claim "Average American man in the Army in WWII was 5'8" and weighed 140lbs" in your message #2,429? The last Spit Mk which saw service during the WWII was F Mk 21, Typical service weight (without external load) 9,420 lbs, max with 90 gal blister tank, 10,202 lbs.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back