SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I liked the descent into madness.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I always thought the P-39 was an innovative aircraft with rather a good looking design.The stupid thing is, I rather like the P39, although I hardly dare to say it here anymore.
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.It just happened that it was plagued with issues that overshadowed it's virtues.
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.I've always thought that the propeller wasn't big enough to absorb the available horsepower. Which restricted the performance.
Which happened to more of the earlier fighters, I would say.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.
The P-39 never weighted close to 8,000Ibs surely? That's more likely the maximum take-off weight.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.
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 P-39 never weighted close to 8,000Ibs surely? That's more likely the maximum take-off weight.
Pilots manual for the P-39K says 7653lbs with 120 US gallons of fuel, clean. Aero products propeller.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.
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 changesHow 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.
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.
That's with 700Ibs of fuel internally - so not the empty weight of the aircraft. although the P-39 is certainly the heavier aircraft.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.
You don't fly with empty aircraft.That's with 700Ibs of fuel internally - so not the empty weight of the aircraft. although the P-39 is certainly the heavier aircraft.
I believe Chuck Yeager said he really liked flying the P-39.From what I've read, the -39s were fairly agile at alts below 10k or so?
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.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.
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.I believe Chuck Yeager said he really liked flying the P-39.