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

So that's a considerable jump in weight, especially at the front of the airframe - I wonder what adjustments were made to preserve CoG.
Perhaps the best answer would have been to reposition the engine further back - behind the pilot maybe so it would give a nice cog in the centre of the aircraft.
Would have been a far superior plane then - I wonder if anyone.... ever.... did.... that.... {slinks off quietly into the sunset...}
 
Perhaps the best answer would have been to reposition the engine further back - behind the pilot maybe so it would give a nice cog in the centre of the aircraft.
Would have been a far superior plane then - I wonder if anyone.... ever.... did.... that.... {slinks off quietly into the sunset...}
Of course, you must be referring to the Piaggio P.119, right? :lol:
 
Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the Iron Dogs of war.

Or the groundhogs!

1626155325690.png


1626155388668.png
 
Consider yourself fortunate you're not banging your head on door frames and bending your knees backward to get in and out of MGBs, Triumph Spitfires, and J3 Cubs!
Get yourself a pair of these:
View attachment 631990
And quityerbellyachin!
Your concern is appreciated, but using a pair of those will just add extra weight and introduce stability issues that will surely send me tumbling, making me sorely regret the time I removed my nose armour.
 
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.
Not proven wrong about any of those. Not wasting time proving them again.
 
Weight and rate of climb are directly related when engine power remains constant.
You simply REFUSE to read dont you? The introduction of variable speed props and then constant speed props completely changed rate of climb on the Spitfire, DESPITE increasing weight by over 400Lbs. It changed again with a different prop on the MkII. What is the point in a discussion where you refuse to read or accept anything? This is not controversial or special knowledge only understood by experts it is common knowledge which can be found anywhere on the net.

When first tested the Spitfire was slower than expected, so they took off the "climbing" prop and put on one optimised for speed. On the ground with a two blade wooden prop only around 660BHP was available because at max revs the prop was stalled so the power produced little thrust.

It isnt only the Spitfire, what did paddle blade props do for many A/C especially the P-47?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back