SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I liked the descent into madness.
Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained)
- 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 always thought the P-39 was an innovative aircraft with rather a good looking design.
It just happened that it was plagued with issues that overshadowed it's virtues.
Shortround6
Major General
Designing a 5000-5500lb plane and having wind up weighing close to 8,000lbs (for a host of reasons from various places) without a corresponding increase in power would not have worked out for any nation/company.
drgondog
Major
A 1940 P-39, Hurricane and Spitfire were not far apart - The primary 'retard' element was the V-1710 family of engines vs R-R in expansion of Performance at higher altitudes.. The second major factor was small internal fuel capacity - which reduced tactical footprint vs P-40/ P-38/ P-51. The Power available coupled with the small wing reduced comparable manueverability as weight increased.
The deriative that solved most of the issues (P-63) was actually a very nice airplane - with no real mission in US operations when it was delivered.
The deriative that solved most of the issues (P-63) was actually a very nice airplane - with no real mission in US operations when it was delivered.
drgondog
Major
You are probably correct, and moreso when the power available grew to P-63 levels. The P-38/P-40 and P-51 all had larger diameter props with same basic powered Allisons.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The P-63 also had a four bladed prop.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
From what I've read, the -39s were fairly agile at alts below 10k or so?
Which happened to more of the earlier fighters, I would say.
In the end it's not only about how good a design was. I think were focus too much on "the best" on this forum ( don't know how many threads I've seen called something like "which was better"). More important is, "was it available". It was available first in the Pacific and then in Russia. I believe in Russia it was actually quite useful as well.
I can probably name a dozen aircraft about which we cannot say that, so the pluky little groundhog did alright.
Apart from that nose armour of course
The P-39 never weighted close to 8,000Ibs surely? That's more likely the maximum take-off weight.
How does the P-39's internal fuel capacity compare with a Spitfire or Bf-109? I don't believe the P-39 suffered inferior range compared to the other 2 aircraft.
Shortround6
Major General
Pilots manual for the P-39K says 7653lbs with 120 US gallons of fuel, clean. Aero products propeller.
Pilots manual for the P-39L says 7728lbs with 120 US gallons of fuel, clean. Curtiss electric propeller.
Weights with 75 gal drop tank go 8188lbs and 8263lbs.
Test weight for a P-39Q-5 was 7871lbs. clean.
120 US gallons is 99.9 Imp gallons and 454 liters.
MiTasol
2nd Lieutenant
From the -1 for the model - K had more internal fuel than the Spit and Q had less.
P-39K
P-39Q
P-39K
P-39Q
If unprotected fuel tanks are okay, the P-39C with 170 US gals of internal fuel was best of the lot. Also some 1000 lbs lighter than the next versions, that were with protection, additional MGs and other changes
It was also zippy, as fast as the Spitfire V or the Bf 109F1/F2; granted, these fighters were with protection both for pilot and fuel.
Unfortunately, the 1st P-39C (ie. the 1st P-39 that has guns etc) was delivered in 1941 (January).
V-1710 E4 was still giving a good service on the lightweight P-39C, unlike with the 1000 lbs heavier 'mainstream' versions.
That's with 700Ibs of fuel internally - so not the empty weight of the aircraft. although the P-39 is certainly the heavier aircraft.
Shortround6
Major General
the basic problem with the P-39 was the power to weight in climb. It had low drag and could go quite fast for the power it had. But trying to lift that extra weight was too much.
A Spitfire V with full tropical equipment and a 90imp gallon tank weighed 7485lbs. Without the tank it was 6695lbs. a 1/2 ton lighter than a P-39K. Streamlining only gets you so far.
A Spitfire V with full tropical equipment and a 90imp gallon tank weighed 7485lbs. Without the tank it was 6695lbs. a 1/2 ton lighter than a P-39K. Streamlining only gets you so far.
Shortround6
Major General
You don't fly with empty aircraft.
I believe Chuck Yeager said he really liked flying the P-39.
Look at the climb improvement the P-47 had when going to the paddle blade propeller. A better propeller would have helped the P-39's also.
GregP
Major
Of course he did. It was likely his first high-performance fighter aircraft out of training. It was WAY more fun than an AT-6.
But, then again, he hadn't flown many other fighters yet.
