fubar57
General
LMFAO!!!!!!! To hell with actual measuring
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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]
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.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.
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!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.
Those are Bell Speed Propellers. They were bent that way to improve speed and climb to 20,000 ft..Is that one of those "Q" props?
Those are Bell Speed Propellers. They were bent that way to improve speed and climb to 20,000 ft..
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.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.
No, no, no... Bending the props in this manner moves the CoG aft allowing the removal of the IFF.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?