Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And it was well documented that Lockheed had conflict with the British over the castrated P-38s, Lockheed took the issue to legal arbitration, if this was remotely true I'm sure Bell "could have" taken the same path.The whole theory that the Brits deliberately added a gas heater to help increase the P-400's weight so they could get out of the contract is so ridiculous. Anyone who's worked in procurement, or any person with a ha'pen'orth of common sense who looks at the timeline of actual events, would recognize that it's nonsense...and yet here we are with the same conspiracy theory still being trotted out.
Same feelings - always thought it was a great looking airplane despite it's limitations. I will say I've learned a lot about this aircraft during these discussions, even our "Expert" brought up things I didn't know about production configurations and aircraft assembly.I actually like the P-39...have done ever since I was a wee one and saw an article by Ray Rimell about building the Monogram 1/48 kit. I just HAD to get hold of that kit. It was so cool, with the ability to leave panels off to display the engine and gun bay, and leave the cockpit door open.
That said, there are a great many aircraft that I really, REALLY like but which weren't great performers: Buffalo, Skua, Whirlwind, Vildebeest, Wellesley, Lysander, A-17, Defiant, Blenheim, P-66, P-35, P-36, Fokker D-XXI, CW-21 etc etc. I'm just objective about their relative strengths and weaknesses. For me, the more interesting part is the courage of the crews who flew them.
I find this to be the most dangerous thing when you find folks with limited or no flight training reading flight manuals and trying to interpret items that require introductory training to fully understand. Maintenance and assembly manuals are easier unless you're doing things like weight and balance, magneto timing, or computing bend allowance or rivet spacing during repairs. It has to be noted that some of these WW2 flight manuals lack some information, have typo errors and even have aircraft specific information omitted."Expert" reminds me of the German entry in the movie "The magnificent men in their flying machines." In case no one saw or remembers, "There is nothing a German officer can't do. All he needs is the manual."
Same feelings - always thought it was a great looking airplane despite it's limitations. I will say I've learned a lot about this aircraft during these discussions, even our "Expert" brought up things I didn't know about production configurations and aircraft assembly.
Well the Kingcobra did late in the war, if the P-39 was designed around a two stage Merlin it would have done what was claimed, but that was its problem. The P-51A/ Mustang MkII did what was claimed but werent called the P-410.Just as an aside, could there have been an engine, post war, that could have been mounted in the P-39 airframe that would give it claimed performance? Not talking Reno Racers.
I was even thinking of the jet engine that the Bee-Dee 5 had.
I learned a lot about heaters.
I loved the duel over the septic pond.I find this to be the most dangerous thing when you find folks with limited or no flight training reading flight manuals and trying to interpret items that require introductory training to fully understand. Maintenance and assembly manuals are easier unless you're doing things like weight and balance, magneto timing, or computing bend allowance or rivet spacing during repairs. It has to be noted that some of these WW2 flight manuals lack some information and even have aircraft specific information omitted.
Comment of the year;
"I'm not a pilot but I have read the pilot manuals."
If I could I would give you bacon as well!But he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I found the whole wording of the manual very odd, it is written as if speaking to a P-39 owner, not a trainee pilot or a pilot in a military force. Every pilot who is actually approved to fly the thing will have had to pass tests in all the basic theory that it states.I find this to be the most dangerous thing when you find folks with limited or no flight training reading flight manuals and trying to interpret items that require introductory training to fully understand. Maintenance and assembly manuals are easier unless you're doing things like weight and balance, magneto timing, or computing bend allowance or rivet spacing during repairs. It has to be noted that some of these WW2 flight manuals lack some information, have typo errors and even have aircraft specific information omitted.
[...] If you have to be correct on every subject just because you are a pilot then the rest of us should just give up? Bill can compute his own crazy flight plan. I have computed numerous flight plans on here for the P-39 and the P-47 and the information comes straight from the manuals.
It really is a beautiful airplane. Too bad it wasn't better. As I learned from this thread, there was no room in the airframe for improvements.
To a point!I found the whole wording of the manual very odd, it is written as if speaking to a P-39 owner, not a trainee pilot or a pilot in a military force. Every pilot who is actually approved to fly the thing will have had to pass tests in all the basic theory that it states.
Then the conspiracy theorist in me gets to work and I wonder if mistakes and anomalies in the manual were put there to make trainee pilots really think about what they were doing.