Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Weight and rate of climb are directly related when engine power remains constant.
One Ex to another: t'aint that simple, lad. pbehn's pesky variables all add into the equation. Two engines of the same horsepower don't necessarily produce the same thrust unless they have identical props and superchargers rigged identically. Different marks of the same airframe almost certainly will not have identical drag coefficients due to different armament, antenna, and various other details. I could go on and on, but it's like conversing with a brick wall.It isnt a question of just weight, it is thrust lift drag etc.
It is a complete waste of time, to improve the performance of the P-39 to get it to do 400MPH one mod was to change the exhausts to be in the direction of airflow, the Spitfires fish tail exhausts increased speed by about 10MPH with a slight increase in climb rate, so an increase in performance with no increase in power, all this has been posted here on this thread.One Ex to another: t'aint that simple, lad. pbehn's pesky variables all add into the equation. Two engines of the same horsepower don't necessarily produce the same thrust unless they have identical props and superchargers rigged identically. Different marks of the same airframe almost certainly will not have identical drag coefficients due to different armament, antenna, and various other details. I could go on and on, but it's like conversing with a brick wall.
What was that cold war strategy? Containment?Then we just have every other thread spammed with the same P-39 stuff.
No Mad. Kinda appropriate here i think.What was that cold war strategy? Containment?
With regard to Thumpalumpacus post below, engine power did not remain constant. The problem with the Allisson engine was it ran out of lungs at lower altitudes than others, but its power was changed by use of different fuels and gear ratios, you often quote this in your arguments. The power of the Merlin changed with use of different fuels which didnt increase weight, as well as different superchargers which did. The Merlin increased from circa 1,000BHP to circa 2,000BHP in 5 years, so 200BHP per year and airframes had to adjust to it and make use of it. The Hurricane MkII was 7 inches longer than a MkI. What do you do about an engine 7 inches longer in a P-39? Every small change in the engine requires almost a completely new airframe to be designed. Without these changes the P-51 would never have been an escort fighter with a Merlin engine, how would it perform with 1000BHP max?Weight and rate of climb are directly related when engine power remains constant.
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.
You haven't proven many or indeed any of them.Not proven wrong about any of those. Not wasting time proving them again.
Not proven wrong about any of those. Not wasting time proving them again.
He was already here this week, just a heads up and duck....https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/the-p-39-a-zero-killer.40531/Then we just have every other thread spammed with the same P-39 stuff.
I am sure they do but it will be three times as long, Charpy test in German is Kerbschlagbeigeversuch.I've watched it a few times already. I wonder if there was a LW equivalent of the Groundhog.
Heutevergleichmitgesternschwein?Gesundheit.
Das immerwiedernocheinmahl?Heutevergleichmitgesternschwein?
I'd say the Me210 would qualify for that title.I've watched it a few times already. I wonder if there was a LW equivalent of the Groundhog.