I haven't got time to dig into the charts right now, but rule of thumb if you don't want your pilots to take an unscheduled swim: ALWAYS take the LEAST optimistic figure, then start deducting for contrary circumstances from there. Tail End Charlie will be flying the most beat up least efficient plane in the squadron, will burn the most fuel throttle jockeying at the whiplash end of the formation, and be the one whose loss you'll have to explain to the CO and whose parents you'll have to write THE LETTER to after everybody else returns safe.
Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained)
- Thread starter greybeard
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Dash119
Senior Airman
Just one of the many reasons to remove the nose armor...
Another thing they didnt think of, just fly at 25,000ft and nothing can get you.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
If there is a 20gal allowance for takeoff and climb to 5000', then why are other altitudes listed on the chart? And why aren't there specific allowances for every altitude? Because the 20gal allowance works for all the altitudes and power settings for the chart. Fuel used during climb and the cruising range during that climb are already factored in. To make it easier for the pilot to use the chart.
No way, Jose! There are no "one size fits all"s in aircraft performance. Any competent pilot, when presented with one, had better adopt a "show me" attitude and verify its accuracy if surviving to old age is important to them. Your armchair won't dump you in the drink; your P39 will.
It's a manifestation of our sense of brotherhood and charity that we will put in all this effort to help our wayward member see the light, despite his mental attributes apparently resembling those of a creature whose contribution to the breakfast table we worship here, and whose feral cousin totes a 30MM firehose and hunts diesel armadillos for a living. Don't you find that honorable?
Last edited:
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,265
- Jan 31, 2021
There are. It's right there on the Take-Off, Climb, and Landing charts page. An image of it has been provided in this post.
At 8,000 lbs take-off weight:
24.5 gallons used to 5,000 feet
29.2 gallons used to 10,000 feet
35.3 gallons used to 15,000 feet
39.7 gallons used to 25,000 feet
The higher you go the more fuel is going to be used because more energy must be expended to get higher up. Basic physics.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
There's also a relief tube to make it easier on the pilot.
Wes said it - it isn't "one size fits all." You are so wrong in so many fronts and now you're going to try to dispute this was an ATP. Incredible! This is why I stopped addressing this many posts back. You don't know how to use the charts, that simple, the same way you didn't know how to do weight and balance so you can continue with your narcissist belief that you know what you're doing, there are some of us who have actually used similar charts for actual flights. So tell us, how many cross country flight hours have you flown calculating flight data?
BTW - I will say that there are errors on those charts and missing data so I will give you that. Aside from that all is good if you plan to take off and fly at 5000' all day!
Last edited:
From the little I have read compared to others who post, the mission planners had the power to inflict more losses on their own than the opposition. Imagine the bombers not being escorted because of a screw up in timing, not being able to land because of weather and the escorts ditching, running out of fuel trying to find them.
You don't have to imagine that scenario. It happened. More than once.
I know I mean not losing a few but half of the mission.
As a military plane the P-39 improved the way that a Typhoon improved, according to what the client wanted, it was reinforced and had armour added to make it more useful, not faster or better climbing. The Q had a lot of mods that the Russians asked for, who seemed to have similar ideas to the British.
buffnut453
Captain
Aaanndd...another 2 pages have been filled and I'm still waiting a response to my post #2746.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It's like waiting at the DMV to get your driver's license!
buffnut453
Captain
Or waiting for USPS to deliver paperwork to the DMV that I posted on 9 July and which was only delivered today...and the distance from where I posted it to where it was delivered is about a 2-hour drive! Sorry...DMV is a sore topic today!!!
Shortround6
Major General
I would take a pass on this one. You may not find "combat power" In US manuals.
You might find it in British manuals?
Unfortunately some rather well known authors have used it, rightly or wrongly, Like Francis Dean in AHT.
For instance he used in the acceleration tables I referenced above. This does tend to scramble things.
AS long as every body KNOWS that "combat Power" refers to WEP or WER or some other power level above "military power" I personally don't have a problem with it.
Unfortunately some people don't know the difference.
In the case of the P-39 the difference is mute as the plane can't make anything higher than military power above about 15,500ft.
fubar57
General
I've always heard that about attaining American drivers licenses and renewals. Where I am now and back in my home town of 20K+, I was in and out in less than 20 minutes tops
buffnut453
Captain
AAARRGGGHHHH....one of my pet peeves of the English language: mute = silent, speechless; moot = debatable, doubtful. Methinks you mean the latter.
I'm clearly too grumpy to continue posting to this thread. I'm off to bed.
P.S. Apols SR6...just couldn't resist!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Each state has it's own Department of Motor Vehicles, but oddly enough, the people that staff them all seem to have the same disposition regardless of geographical location.
In all the years of dealing with civil servants, I have rarely had a pleasant (or timely) experience.
