fubar57
General
LMFAO!!!!!!! To hell with actual measuring
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)
- Thread starter greybeard
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
drgondog
Major
For the umpteenth time, independent of any miracle to squeeze the 10# engine into a 9# Compartment, major re-design would be required to make it flyable. Look into the major differences between the P-63 and P-39. As far as persuasive ability, you much remind me of a hound barking at the moon.
buffnut453
Captain
I'll repeat slowly because you're clearly not reading/understanding what other people have written....
AUXILIARY.....STAGE....DIDN'T.....FIT....IN....THE...ENGINE....COMPARTMENT.
AUX....STAGE...WENT....IN....THE....COMPARTMENT....AFT....OF....THE....ENGINE....COMPARTMENT.
THAT...AFT....COMPARTMENT....WAS....DIFFERENT....IN....THE....XP-39E....AND....P-63....COMPARED....TO.....P-39D.
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
OK I Confess, your right. Your sketch to a manual is so much more accurate than the photos of the real aircraft, taken by the manufacturers, and measurements taken by people with access to the real aircraft. So much more accurate than the designers who put the aircraft together and the engineers that serviced the aircraft.
Your engineering insight is so much more than people in this forum who have decades of experience in all aspects of aviation engineering. I should know that you are so trustworthy we should believe what you say and the proven accusations that you cherry pick aspects of documents are just a figment of our imagination.
I really don't know why I didn't agree with you from the start. How could I be so stupid.
GregP
Major
I didn't really want to say this, but you are emotionally draining, P-39 Expert. We have had some previously-banned members in here who had theories about "thrust columns" and other aerial oddities, but nobody until you completely ignored reason.
All of us already agreed with you that the engine compartment was the same size. You can't seem to wrap your head around that fact that the 2-stage Allison occupied more than one compartment in the airframe, and the second compartment is where the P-39 isn't quite big enough. Your obsession with the P-39 is meaningless since the P-39 is all but forgotten by the general public. This thread notwithstanding, the P-39 is less than a footnote in WWII history, and the aggravation of trying to speak with you when you won't read and respond to our posts point by point is more than the potential benefits of continuing the discussion, at least to me.
Best of luck to you sir.
May the wind at your back always be your own.
Cheers.
All of us already agreed with you that the engine compartment was the same size. You can't seem to wrap your head around that fact that the 2-stage Allison occupied more than one compartment in the airframe, and the second compartment is where the P-39 isn't quite big enough. Your obsession with the P-39 is meaningless since the P-39 is all but forgotten by the general public. This thread notwithstanding, the P-39 is less than a footnote in WWII history, and the aggravation of trying to speak with you when you won't read and respond to our posts point by point is more than the potential benefits of continuing the discussion, at least to me.
Best of luck to you sir.
May the wind at your back always be your own.
Cheers.
fubar57
General
From wiki (again)
XP-39EBell Model 23. three P-39Ds modified for ground and flight testing first flown 21 February 1942.[75] Intended for 2,100 hp (1,600 kW) Continental I-1430-1 engine but only flown with 1,325 hp (988 kW) Allison V-1710-47 engine. Used to test various wing and vertical tails. Fuselage lengthened by 21 in (530 mm) and used in the development of the P-63. The production variant, with the Continental engines was to be designated P-76; there was no Bell XP-76 as such.[75]
XP-39EBell Model 23. three P-39Ds modified for ground and flight testing first flown 21 February 1942.[75] Intended for 2,100 hp (1,600 kW) Continental I-1430-1 engine but only flown with 1,325 hp (988 kW) Allison V-1710-47 engine. Used to test various wing and vertical tails. Fuselage lengthened by 21 in (530 mm) and used in the development of the P-63. The production variant, with the Continental engines was to be designated P-76; there was no Bell XP-76 as such.[75]
buffnut453
Captain
AND....THE....21".....EXTENSION....ENABLED....THE....LARGER....AFT.....COMPARTMENT....FOR....THE....AUX....STAGE.
If we ever discuss anything new it ceases to be a groundhog thread, as I see it you can fit it all in a P-39 and then all you need to do is move the wing and extend the tail.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Somehow, I think someone here should be fronting for the Flat Earth Society.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
You mean "XP-39." Your point was a "could have, would have, should have scenario, after the first XP-39E was destroyed during spin testing. Imagine that!
The P-39D I believe had a V-1710-35 engine. Not only did the XP-39E have a V-1710-47, but it was lengthened by 21 inches. Imagine that!
From Joe Baugher's site.
"The XP-39E had a much better high-altitude performance than other Airacobra variants. It was redesignated XP-76 and no less than 4000 were ordered by the USAAF. However, the new design was considered to be inferior to the basic Airacobra in many respects, and the order for the XP-76 was later cancelled in its entirety. Nevertheless, the XP-39E was to provide some valuable basic data for the later P-63 Kingcobra."
So "IF" there was an inkling of thought to put the 2 stage supercharger in any production P-39 model (providing it fit and I don't think it "would have"), that would have been the time to do it! (Mid 1942)
Why wasn't it done? Because Bell (with a contract award from the AAF) went forward with the P-63 which in the end was too little too late. AND THE ENGINE DIDN'T FIT!!!!
Could have, would have, should have.
What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men, you just can't reach. So, you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it.
And I don't like it anymore than you men...
And I don't like it anymore than you men...
GregP
Major
Is that one of those "Q" props?
fubar57
General
Those are Bell Speed Propellers. They were bent that way to improve speed and climb to 20,000 ft..
buffnut453
Captain
No, silly, they bent it backwards to reduce frontal drag. The manual didn't say that WASN'T correct....so, ergo, it MUST BE correct, right?
If you put this with the Wiki articles on the P-39E and the development of the P-63 then the "P-39E" as a type were development airframes a bit like the Rolls Royce Mustang X (someone has to pay). As far as I can see it only flew with the -47 engine, but the initial contract was also for tests with Continental and Packard engines. Later stuff about installing the auxilliary supercharger and lengthening the airframe is a separate issue, using someone elses airframes for mock ups and trial fits when developing the P-63.
Dash119
Senior Airman
No, no, no... Bending the props in this manner moves the CoG aft allowing the removal of the IFF.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Dang...and here I thought the blades were bent back due to it's wicked jet-killer speed...
