Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
LikeIn other words - everyone has forgotten what a a P-39 is ?
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.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,........
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).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.
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.
I thought the nose was bullet shaped to allow the P39 to penetrate the ground more easily.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 the penetrate the ground more easily.
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.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.