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]

Documentary?

And here I thought it was just historical artistic license. That's sort of like calling someone who is ugly "appearance disadvantaged" or someone who is bald "hairline impaired."

 

[Peter Gunn]

In other words - everyone has forgotten what a a P-39 is ?

Like nuuumannn says, not trying to be religious but funny how things work out. Even during the most heated exchanges here on the Airacobra I hope we didn't devolve to personal attacks. So to expand on my old gaming screen name, if I had chosen Peter_Three_Nine:

1 Peter 3:9

9 ​Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.

I'd like to think our buddy the Expert was not repaid with insults here.

 

[WARSPITER]

Therefore it may be that we should bless the P-39 as many seem to think it's flight characteristics to be on the evil side of the ledger ?

 

[fubar57]

.....or as one member thinks

 

[GrauGeist]

To be fair, Bell designed and built an aircraft to satisfy the USAAC's unhealthy obsession with the 37mm cannon and for a mission profile that never happened.

It would be interesting to see what Bell would have come up with had there been no cannon requirement - in other words, designed for conventional armament arrangement instead.

 

[fubar57]

Maybe Bell was using this as a role model; mid-engine with 37mm cannon, no nose armour included.....Vickers Type 161

PUBLIC DOMAIN​

 

[Clayton Magnet]

It would be interesting to see what Bell would have come up with had there been no cannon requirement - in other words, designed for conventional armament arrangement instead.

Revisionist history here, but I suspect they could have easily stuffed 3 Oerlikon FFL cannons into the nose, if that was the intent from day 1.
That would have been a HEALTHY armament for the day, no need for heavy wing guns. While we are at it, they could have deleted the IFF, nose armour, moved the radio, shoehorned in a 2 stage supercharger,........

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Revisionist history here, but I suspect they could have easily stuffed 3 Oerlikon FFL cannons into the nose, if that was the intent from day 1.
That would have been a HEALTHY armament for the day, no need for heavy wing guns. While we are at it, they could have deleted the IFF, nose armour, moved the radio, shoehorned in a 2 stage supercharger,........

 

[GregP]

Yeah, they COULD have designed a good aircraft, but they didn't.

They designed a mediocre one. And it was designed to mediocre specifications supporting a mission it really almost never flew in real life.

Given what they had to deal with, they didn't do a bad job. But they DID design an aircraft with very little potential for developmental weight and power gains. And we KNOW how often later models of a fighter get simultaneously lighter and more powerful, don't we? Never.

The Bf 109, Spitfire, P-51, P-40, P-38, and P-47 all got heavier and more powerful as they were developed.

The P-39 just got heavier as it went along. Technically, it DID get a slight jump in power, but never as much as it really needed.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Like so many aircraft of the era, it got outstripped by events and further developments. What we say down here: A day late and a dollar short.

 

[Peter Gunn]

I think that's what irks me the most about the P-39, it looks great, I like the tricycle landing gear, the mid engine, all the quirky stuff too. But the performance just isn't there, so many if's and might have been's it makes your head spin, but to me it's still a great looking airplane.

 

[GrauGeist]

.

I think that's what irks me the most about the P-39, it looks great, I like the tricycle landing gear, the mid engine, all the quirky stuff too. But the performance just isn't there, so many if's and might have been's it makes your head spin, but to me it's still a great looking airplane.

I don't recall who made the statement, but when the prototype was rolled out, they admired it's design and compared it's nose to that of a bullet (since no engine and associated radiators, cooling flaps and such).

 

[WARSPITER]

Ahh... that explains it then. If the nose is a bullet you don't need to armour it then.

 

[buffnut453]

That's sort of like calling someone who is ugly "appearance disadvantaged" or someone who is bald "hairline impaired."

Baldness is not being "hairline impaired"....it's having a French hair-do - constantly retreating.

 

[fubar57]

Yikes!!!

 

[Peter Gunn]

Baldness is not being "hairline impaired"....it's having a French hair-do - constantly retreating.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Ahh... that explains it then. If the nose is a bullet you don't need to armour it then.

I thought the nose was bullet shaped to allow the P39 to penetrate the ground more easily.

 

[WARSPITER]

I thought the nose was bullet shaped to allow the P39 the penetrate the ground more easily.

Thus the later models coffin lid shaped all wooden wing design known as a laminated flow (ah come on it's late here... I know..hat, coat, let the doorknob hit ya where the good Lord
split ya ... )

 

[vikingBerserker]

My God, I'm FRENCH!!!

 

[drgondog]

To be fair, Bell designed and built an aircraft to satisfy the USAAC's unhealthy obsession with the 37mm cannon and for a mission profile that never happened.

It would be interesting to see what Bell would have come up with had there been no cannon requirement - in other words, designed for conventional armament arrangement instead.

The RFP was stated for Interceptor - one S/E (Bell) and one T/E (P-38) and Turbosuperchargers Required to meet the altitude performance specs. Kelsey would later say that the XP-39 was the 'small solution'. The P-400 reflected what a customer thought of the M-4.