Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained) (1 Viewer)

[GregP]

Way cool, ThomasP! Best P-63 pic I've seen for looking at engine location is the overhead view.

You can see the intake tube going into the internal supercharger housing perfectly. One of the main reasons we all know there is a bearer for the aux stage is that the intake to the internal S/C has rubber connections to the tube coming from the aux stage. That keeps it airtight, but won't support much weight. let along a couple of hundred pounds. The only other connection of any consequence is a very light driveshaft.

You can also see it is pretty wide right back to the bulkhead aft of the aux stage.

Nice pics.

 

[Glider]

Its a great picture, beautifully labelled, very clear and obviously used a real aircraft as the subject.

But and its a big but. Are all these facts as accurate as P39's sketch?

 

[GrauGeist]

But and its a big but. Are all these facts as accurate as P39's sketch?

Pretty sure this is the caliber of the "drawings" that the Authority keeps referring to...

 

[GregP]

What airplane is that sketch?

Is that a Soviet BearScat? Or HellHat? Or CoarseHair?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

What airplane is that sketch?

Is that a Soviet BearScat? Or HellHat? Or CoarseHair?

No, it's a Soviet McGur 15, can't you tell? The prototype with the dummy prop on it to fool the spies.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Is that a Soviet BearScat? Or HellHat? Or CoarseHair?

Why thats a P-39 that was not destroyed by the British and their crazy design requirements.

 

[pbehn]

Why thats a P-39 that was not destroyed by the British and their crazy design requirements.

I think the P-39 was the first fighter to insist on its right to bare arms (see what I did there)?

 

[fubar57]

just me and the crickets tonight

 

[GrauGeist]

just me and the crickets tonight

View attachment 635348​

And the occasional tumbleweed...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

 

[ThomasP]

Me time!

 

[33k in the air]

I'd like to do another (somewhat) witty pun for this thread, but I think I've used them all up.

 

[GrauGeist]

Seems like this thread came to a sudden halt.
Much like Bill Overstreet's P-39

 

[GregP]

That groundhog has a donut and coffee.

Must be a cop, huh?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

That groundhog has a donut and coffee.

Must be a cop, huh?

And helmet-mounted SCATR tubes to boot. This militarization of law enforcement is getting out of hand!

 

[XBe02Drvr]

just me and the crickets tonight

Hey Buddy, so you escaped that plane crash after all and have been living in secrecy all these years? And the guys in the band have been jamming with you but have never blown your cover? We're supposed to believe that? THAT'LL BE THE DAY!

 

[glennasher]

There is a nasty cloud of flies circling this thread. They think it is dead and rotting. I concur.

 

[special ed]

All of you have caused me to get out P-39 books. Unfortunately, there is still varying opinion. First, remember during the depression any attack would be bombers coming in toward coastal areas. The defense would be interceptors. The P-38 and P-39 were interceptors and the XFM & YFM were bomber destroyers. The idea of escorts with the attacking bombers was thought not possible, which is why the USAAF was slow to catch on and unprepared in Europe. Dorr & Scutts (Crowood) point out positive reports from the Brits about it's speed and manoeuverablity. They dispell the myth that the Soviets used the 37mm as a tank buster because of it's low power and lack of armor penetration. By the time of Pearl Harbor the Brits opinion changed to "unsuitable". No mention of cockpit heater. The 37mm was a favorite of to the US army and as Mr. Bell had seen a demonstration of the cannon, he saw it as a plus to include in a prospective fighter. Birch Matthews work, "Cobra", has considerable info. I usually don't read the preface when I first get a book, so now reading the preface, Matthews points out myths such as the P-39E had laminar flow airfoil when it did not. He points out that the P-39 mission was always as an interceptor, not ground support or coastal defense. After the NACA report, Bell had to remove the turbosupercharger to have any hope of an army contract, needed to prevent company bankruptcy. Another critical problem at Bell Aircraft was the lack of "an exceptionally talented engineer equivalent to NAA, Lockheed, and Douglas." Bob woods refused to reconfigure the XFL-1 c.g. while still on paper. The problem remained, causing USN an easy out. Matthews points out the later P-63 never gained USAAF acceptance in a combat capacity because it had the shortest combat radius of any USN or USAAF fighter of the war. His research not mine, but checking easily available stats, is verified. Matthews conclusion it was due to clinging to the 37mm canon. Other books perpetuate the 390 mph ideas, such as Kinzey's "P-39 Airacobra" and Rick Mitchell's "Airacobra Advantage". Mitchell has a quote from Tex Johnston, test pilot later in the program, "The P-39 was truly a fine airplane when utilized for the mission for which it was designed. Many articles written by misinformed authors and /or unqualified pilots have adversely affected the reputation of a fine airplane." Kind of a quote from a company man, with ambiguity. Squadron's P-39 in action No.43 is more for modelers as is Kinzey's and Mitchell's books. I have yet to look in the Putnam book as I an tiring of the P-39 info. As far as a recommendation, Matthew's book is the one to study as he was a Bell employee with access to records, and as impartial as I have seen. Well written and documented.

 

[GregP]

Nobody in here has really said or thought the P-39 was absolutely terrible. What we have said is basically:

1) The range was wholly inadequate, and it was. There was no way to really "fix it," either.
2) The single-stage engine meant it was pretty good below about 15,000 feet and not much good above that altitude. By 20,000 feet, the airplane was flying, but wasn't exactly a "fighter." Unlike most other fighters, it never got a big change in horsepower. The Spitfire went from 1,000 hp to over 2,000. The P-39 went from 1,000 hp to 1,325. There is no reason to expect great jumps in performance from such a modest power increase, and they certainly didn't get it.
3) The potential for growth was woefully lacking.
4) They never did analyze the airplane when the ammunition had been used up. Had they done so, they would have seen what the airplane was being accused of by service pilots; tumbling (actually a Lomcevak maneuver).
5) It actually did the job it was specified for decently well. It wasn't very adaptable to other missions because it couldn't go very far or very high, and couldn't carry much of an ordnance load. Nobody seemingly had much use for the mission for which the P-39 was designed (low-altitude, short-range interceptor), so nobody really wanted it except the Soviet Union. If they got it anyway, it wasn't very adaptable to other missions except local short-range CAP. The British had use for a low-altitude interceptor in the V-1 crisis, but the P-39 wasn't fast enough had it been available and it was basically out of British service by that time anyway.

So, the P-39 was basically unwanted and not of overly much use if you happened to have it. It made a great squadron hack and COULD be used to cool off the squadron beer kegs in a pinch. It was definitely more fun to fly than an AT-6. It was likely our best product supplied to the Soviet Union, who wanted a short-range, low-altitude interceptor to support their ground war with the Germans. The P-39 was great packaging for what the Soviets really wanted: a radio.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Does this support anyone's view?
These photos are of the same P-63 airframe under assembly, taken at the Bell factory in Wheatfield NY.
View attachment 634887

View attachment 634888

View attachment 634889

As you can see attached for the umpteenth time the length of the engine compartment is the exact same for the P-39 as it is for the P-63, 90.25 inches. Width of both is also the exact same. If the aux stage fit in the P-63 it would fit in the P-39. It was installed in a P-39D fuselage as the P-39E.