P39 range was awful like the Me109. Fw190 learned that Battle of Britain lesson of not just getting there but time to dogfight and get back.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
P39 range was awful like the Me109. Fw190 learned that Battle of Britain lesson of not just getting there but time to dogfight and get back.You guys are much sharper than I on these two aircraft. My question is how did they stack up or compare range wise. I'm assuming the radial had a higher gallon per mile covered or greater fuel burn than the inline (V12) of the P39?
Cheers,
Biff
Between 15 April 1943 and 25 April 1945, Hartmann claimed 81 P-39s.Hartman shot alot of old aircraft to cut his teeth in the early part of the war. Gaining experience and knowledge. Wonder what he thought of the P39?
Hartman shot alot of old aircraft to cut his teeth in the early part of the war
Not quite as bad as a 109. With a drop tank in NG escort missions were a little over three hours.P39 range was awful like the Me109. Fw190 learned that Battle of Britain lesson of not just getting there but time to dogfight and get back.
Hartman shot alot of old aircraft to cut his teeth in the early part of the war
In Europe with a 75 gallon drop tank it would be around 2 1/2 hours, or less.Not quite as bad as a 109. With a drop tank in NG escort missions were a little over three hours.
These were bomber/transport escort missions per Edwards Park in his book "Angels Twenty". They ran their 110 gallon drop tanks dry at one hour and 40 minutes and often had enough fuel before landing for a "rat race" where the leader took them on a wild ride and the rest of the squadron tried to catch him. At 3 hours and, say, 12 minutes they would have burned about 66gph on 230 gallons less TO allowance of 20 gallons. These were not Pacific missions over water where enemy contact was unlikely, but missions to Wau, Lae etc. that were overland less than 200 miles away and enemy contact would be imminent.In Europe with a 75 gallon drop tank it would be around 2 1/2 hours, or less.
Forget the B-17 escort stuff. Most fighters in Europe cruised at around 300mph when in enemy airspace not the just under or just over 200mph that was often used in the Pacific.
fuel burn was doubled while miles traveled only went up around 50%.
Does anyone know of a very accurate set of technical drawings for the P-39?
Only about a million times.Not sure if this has been posted before,
http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39FOIC.pdf
Bell developed a fairing that enclosed the attachment fittings and sway braces that supposedly increased speed by 18mph, but I have only seen the fairing in a very few photos, all on training flights.Thank you, there are manuals on this site that give similar but not complete charts. Just first and last columns.
The P-39 was cursed (many planes would have loved to have been so cursed ) with being the 2nd lowest drag fighter aircraft the US had. What this means in this case it that it suffered disproportionately compared to many other fighters when you hung a drop tank on it. That or the drop tank installation was really crappy.
At 9,000ft the P-39K&L was supposed (according the charts in the manual) at 1600rpm and 28.5in MAP do 194mph true while burning 35gph while carrying a 75 gallon tank.
At 9,000ft the P-39K&L was supposed at 1600rpm and 26.0 in MAP do 230mph true while burning 32gph while clean.
At 9,000ft the P-39K&L was supposed at 2600rpm and 37.55in MAP do 285mph true while burning 106gph while carrying a 75 gallon tank.
At 9,000ft the P-39K&L was supposed at 2600rpm and 37.5 in MAP do 340mph true while burning 105gph while clean.
I am sure the 109 posted some similar reductions in speed when carrying the drop tank.
The commanders figured out you flew full speed 500 feet off the ground and strafe the Japanese airfields. The Japanese would have a few Zeros on patrol but usually could only have a minute or two to maneuver to attack. Zeros were faster with airspeed gained in a dive but not in level flight. The P39 could just throttle up and leave the fight. If luck was with the P39s they could bounce Japanese planes on takeoff and blast them. The Japanese did not armour up their planes so a few hits and flames galore.
Yes, seen that, but I thought the early Cobra engines were more like those of the Tomahawks and without the WEP option.
I believe the critical altitude for the P-39C may be incorrect. The original document shows 13,050' but the retyped (for clarity) chart shows 16,100'. May be just confusing the C with the N whose critical altitude is listed as 16,100.From WWII Aircraft Performance P-40 and P-39 performance figures a few days apart at the same airfield.
The C model did not have armor plate and self sealing fuel tanks (like the P-400) but these would not increase the gross weight of the P-39C. The tanks weighed 240# and the armor plate weighed an astonishing 292#. The Brits went a little overboard with the armor using it to protect such items as the oxygen bottles, reduction gear etc. A normal use of the armor plate/glass would have located armor fore and aft of the pilot and behind the oil tank resulting in a weight penalty of about 130# instead of 292#.
Then lose the 2 .30caliber MGs in the nose (100#) so that the full 30round magazine can be restored to the 37mm cannon (add back 30#).
I agree with you on the reduction gear armor, it was mostly ballast. Too far away from the pilot to provide any protection and nose gearboxes weren't normally armored on other planes. Bell had a lot of moving parts to design around, what with larger propellers coming along with possibly a mechanical second stage behind the engine. Those radios could be (were) used to restore balance by moving them from the tail to right behind the pilot given the various balance situations.There were only 20 P-39Cs built out of 80 ordered. The US Army decided they wanted self sealing tanks and armor, they didn't pick u British leftovers.
The contract was amended so that the last 60 planes would incorporate the protective measures along with some other changes. It also delayed delivery of the 60 planes until some of the foreign orders (French order picked up the British for example) were completed or at least initial deliveries made.
These last 60 US planes were the P-39D, plain D not D-1 or D-2. there were a further 394 plain "D"s ordered.
I would note there was no restoration of the 30 round ammo capacity for the 37mm gun as it never had 30 rounds on the YP-39s, some of which never got any guns at all and the XP-39 never carried guns.
I believe the reduction gear armor was more of a counterweight than a real need to protect the reduction gear. They needed some weight as far forward in the plane as they could get it and right behind the prop was the far forward location.
You took an easy 70lbs out of the nose with the .30 cal guns and ammo gone, they added armor to the rear of the plane.
On the later planes it was and airplane that was not supposed to flown without ammo for the nose guns unless ballast was carried. It was more than a bit sensitive to the center of gravity.
I would note for the British the 20mm gun weighed about 130lbs compared to the 238lbs of the 37mm gun. and the 20mm ammo and drum were lighter than the 37mm ammo.
radios are all over the place when it comes to weight (and I have no idea why later P-39s picked up about 50lbs of electrical system weight vs the P-39D. (please note the are weight categories for communications as well as radios in addition to the electrical system.)