33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,349
- Jan 31, 2021
Look, this can all end amicably if everyone simply admits the P-39 was the F-22 of its day.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Let's put it this way, if I were a mod I'd shut this down. It's pointless. You guys are tying yourselves in knots to prove this guy wrong and he's not listening.
Look, this can all end amicably if everyone simply admits the P-39 was the F-22 of its day.
Nose armor issues, I bet.Surely it is the F-23? Better than the F-22 but nobody wanted it....
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.So that's a considerable jump in weight, especially at the front of the airframe - I wonder what adjustments were made to preserve CoG.
Of course, you must be referring to the Piaggio P.119, right?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...}
Yeah that must be it... I knew there was a P at the start ......Of course, you must be referring to the Piaggio P.119, right?
Now seriously, where else would you learn what the weight of the P-39's radio control cable is?You guys like this thread more than you'd admit. Methinks Thou doth protest too loudly.
You guys like this thread more than you'd admit. Methinks Thou doth protest too loudly.
You guys like this thread more than you'd admit. Methinks Thou doth protest too loudly.
Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the Iron Dogs of war.
Let's put it this way, if I were a mod I'd shut this down.It's pointless. You guys are tying yourselves in knots to prove this guy wrong and he's not listening.
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.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!
Not proven wrong about any of those. Not wasting time proving them again.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.
Weight and rate of climb are directly related when engine power remains constant.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.
Maybe a gyro stabilizer? Those stilts will seriously lower your CoG.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.
Then we just have every other thread spammed with the same P-39 stuff.
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.Weight and rate of climb are directly related when engine power remains constant.
And in what thread should we post pictures of groundhogs then?Then we just have every other thread spammed with the same P-39 stuff.