Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained) (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter greybeard
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I was having a bit of fun anonymously tossing the P.119 out there.
Truth be told, there were quite a few mid-engined projects either before or during the war. Some never made it off the drawing board while a few actually made it to the prototype stage.
Aside from Bell's P-39/P-63 and Piaggio's P.119, there was:
Koolhoven FK.55: first flew in 1938.
Messerschmitt Me509: paper only, cancelled.
Yokosuka R2Y: first flew in 1945.
Heinkel He119: first flew in 1937.
To add to the mid-engine mix, were the tandem engine tractor types that had an engine fore and aft of the cockpit (the Do335 was a push/pull, so not included):
Arsenal VG 10/20: first flew in 1945.
Kawasaki KI-64: first flew in 1943.
So Bell's design was not unique.
Truth be told, there were quite a few mid-engined projects either before or during the war. Some never made it off the drawing board while a few actually made it to the prototype stage.
Aside from Bell's P-39/P-63 and Piaggio's P.119, there was:
Koolhoven FK.55: first flew in 1938.
Messerschmitt Me509: paper only, cancelled.
Yokosuka R2Y: first flew in 1945.
Heinkel He119: first flew in 1937.
To add to the mid-engine mix, were the tandem engine tractor types that had an engine fore and aft of the cockpit (the Do335 was a push/pull, so not included):
Arsenal VG 10/20: first flew in 1945.
Kawasaki KI-64: first flew in 1943.
So Bell's design was not unique.
GregP
Major
Maybe the Fisher P-75 and Henschel P.75 (paper). I might add the Ilyushin Il-20 just for fun but, technically, it was a front-engine aircraft, even if it really didn't look like one. The Latecoere Late 299 has both a mid-engine and a front engine, so maybe it qualifies. So does the MC.72. The Vought XF5U-1 has mid engines but may not qualify as a conventional airplane.
Some odd airplane in all this! Makes us think, for sure!
Some odd airplane in all this! Makes us think, for sure!
Shortround6
Major General
MC 72 was more of a V-24?
Granted the front 12 cylinders drove one prop and the rear 12 cylinders drove the other. But one supercharger feed all 24 cylinders. Cockpit was way in back. Only things between the engine and the props were gearboxes.
Granted the front 12 cylinders drove one prop and the rear 12 cylinders drove the other. But one supercharger feed all 24 cylinders. Cockpit was way in back. Only things between the engine and the props were gearboxes.
GregP
Major
Yeah, I was just looking at planes that LOOK like they have a mid-engine. In the case of the Late 299, you could start and run one engine at a time, so maybe they qualify as separate engines ... and maybe not. Sort of like trying to be politically correct today.
Interesting airplane, anyway. Probably VERY interesting to fly.
Interesting airplane, anyway. Probably VERY interesting to fly.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I think the Fisher P-75 is a special category because, well, the manufacturer didn't care if it worked. Right? It's like they took one of the ideas from Bell to add to the fun.
I'm outside on the phone so I'm even less inclined to look stuff up.
I'm outside on the phone so I'm even less inclined to look stuff up.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I had a model of their DC-9 copy after they merged with Price back in the 60s. This one was in Braniff colors:
buffnut453
Captain
GregP
Major
Yeah, not usually too many holes in Graugeist's posts. The ones I added are interesting only, and none of them proved very successful. Seems as if the idea of a centrally-mounted engine was never a very good idea unless you had a specific use for it.
From a logical standpoint, if you have a 1200-pound engine out front, then adding a few hundred pounds away from the CG doesn't move things around too much. But if the same engine is ON the CG, then the rest of the airframe is relatively light, and adding a few hundred pounds away from the CG moves the CG a LOT by comparison. This seems obvious to me, but it rather obviously didn't to Bell. HE had a name in airplanes and I don't, and we know what happened ... they made almost 10,000 P-39s along with 3,300 P-63s, none of which could haul much of a load away from the fore and aft CG location. But they DID manage to get decent range from the late P-63s, at least.
Rambling ... so I'll stop ...
From a logical standpoint, if you have a 1200-pound engine out front, then adding a few hundred pounds away from the CG doesn't move things around too much. But if the same engine is ON the CG, then the rest of the airframe is relatively light, and adding a few hundred pounds away from the CG moves the CG a LOT by comparison. This seems obvious to me, but it rather obviously didn't to Bell. HE had a name in airplanes and I don't, and we know what happened ... they made almost 10,000 P-39s along with 3,300 P-63s, none of which could haul much of a load away from the fore and aft CG location. But they DID manage to get decent range from the late P-63s, at least.
Rambling ... so I'll stop ...
Thumpalumpacus
Major
What scale is that...it looks like a highly realistic model!
I think the only real goof-up was the non-laminar-flow wing on the model.
Putting the Griffon in a Spitfire involved 140Lbs of lead ballast in the tail, but the Griffon had over 1000BHP more than the early versions. The P-39 was already a heavy design when it first flew, adding ballast to the front of a P-39 would add to its problems.
GregP
Major
Perhaps, but maybe not if the power went up by 1,000 hp!
Of course, then the range would have been 71 miles with no reserve ...
Of course, then the range would have been 71 miles with no reserve ...
Just slot a Griffon in and away you go. The last Griffons used on the Spiteful were rated at 2,350BHP which is between 3 to 4 times the output of the first Merlins. But in any case the P-63 just beat the Me262 and Meteor into introduction/service use by months not years.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I remember when it was fun to fly!
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
So the development of the P-63 was basically putting lipstick on a pig?
If you forget about the p-39 and P-63 as types, they served to keep Allisson in the engine business and Bell in the aircraft business to still be there when the war was finished.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
When we returned to Iran from an American vacation in 1976, we flew aboard a Pan Am Clipper -- can't remember which name -- nonstop from JFK to Mehrabad in Teheran, about 17 hours in the air. Thankfully, the plane was very light, a 747 with perhaps 60 or 70 passengers, so when we kids got tired we lifted the armrests in the middle bank of seats and had a lumpy couch to sleep on.
Pre-Internet, it was about as fun as hammering an ingrown toenail.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
We could use an insightful award.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I think my first flight was on Eastern; "The wings of Man". I wore a jacket and tie as did all the male passengers. The ladies, in their finest. I don't remember the food being so awful.
wuzak
Captain
Rolls-Royce Flying Test Bed - got to the mock-up stage.
