Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained) (13 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

drgondog said:
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.
Click to expand...

One problem suffered by the Airacobra I compared to the British built fighters was that it was heavy. Its loaded weight was nearly 2,000 lbs heavier than the Spitfire Mk.I and nearly 1,000lbs heavier than the Hurricane Mk.I. Its loaded weight was only 1,000 lbs lighter than the Boulton Paul Defiant Mk.I. During trials of the Airacobra, which took place over several months between early and mid 1941 because of various accidents and what have you to test Airacobras, the British Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment demonstrated that both the British single-seat fighters in their Mk.I guise, with constant speed propellers that is, had far greater rates of climb and altitude performance than the Airacobra, although the Airacobra demonstrated superior speed at low altitude compared to both fighters. Interestingly enough, the Boulton Paul Defiant Mk.II could equal the Airacobra I's climb rate, to a higher ceiling, but not surprisingly given it was 1,000 lbs lighter the Airacobra was faster across all metrics compared to the Defiant. By the time these trials were carried out however, the Airacobra had been withdrawn from RAF service and the Spitfire Mk.V had replaced the Mk.I and II Spitfires, and the Mk.V in all its marks demonstrated greater level speed, climb rate and altitude performance compared to the Airacobra Mk.I.
 
nuuumannn said:
One problem suffered by the Airacobra I compared to the British built fighters was that it was heavy. Its loaded weight was nearly 2,000 lbs heavier than the Spitfire Mk.I and nearly 1,000lbs heavier than the Hurricane Mk.I. Its loaded weight was only 1,000 lbs lighter than the Boulton Paul Defiant Mk.I. During trials of the Airacobra, which took place over several months between early and mid 1941 because of various accidents and what have you to test Airacobras, the British Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment demonstrated that both the British single-seat fighters in their Mk.I guise, with constant speed propellers that is, had far greater rates of climb and altitude performance than the Airacobra, although the Airacobra demonstrated superior speed at low altitude compared to both fighters. Interestingly enough, the Boulton Paul Defiant Mk.II could equal the Airacobra I's climb rate, to a higher ceiling, but not surprisingly given it was 1,000 lbs lighter the Airacobra was faster across all metrics compared to the Defiant. By the time these trials were carried out however, the Airacobra had been withdrawn from RAF service and the Spitfire Mk.V had replaced the Mk.I and II Spitfires, and the Mk.V in all its marks demonstrated greater level speed, climb rate and altitude performance compared to the Airacobra Mk.I.
Click to expand...
Are you posting actual information about the P-39 on the P-39 thread?
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
Looking forward to the other eleven showing up.
Click to expand...

Most certainly a lot more than one. Around 5 or 6 so far and I'm only up to page 20.

I've started reading through the thread again, just as a refresher, there's a lot of talk about learning to fly, combat claims, but only a bit about the P-39, the debate seems to focus on whether or not it was around in numbers, rather than any actual data by individuals that might demonstrate any claims to expert status, mind you, it's early days. A lot more pages to work through...
 
Last edited:
nuuumannn said:
Most certainly a lot more than one. Around 5 or 6 so far and I'm only up to page 20.

I've started reading through the thread again, just as a refresher, there's a lot of talk about learning to fly, combat claims, but only a bit about the P-39, the debate seems to focus on whether or not it was around in numbers, rather than any actual data by individuals that might demonstrate any claims to expert status, mind you, it's early days. A lot more pages to work through...
Click to expand...
It turned out to be educational for me about aeronautics. X XBe02Drvr explained tail heaviness using a paper airplane as an example. It made the concept easily understandable. There are other examples but this one comes to mind.
BTW Our Expert was always a class act. He conducted himself civilly despite all the flak he took.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 14 (members: 5, guests: 9)

    Similar threads

    Holtzauge
    Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
    Replies
    8
    Views
    2K
    Ivan1GFP
    I
    Howard Gibson
    WW2 Fantasy Aircraft
    3 4 5
    Replies
    80
    Views
    6K
    Shortround6
    S
    CHen10
    The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
    2 3 4
    Replies
    60
    Views
    8K
    GrauGeist
    GrauGeist
    Onslow
    Aircraft comparison for operational-level wargames and alt history forums
    Replies
    8
    Views
    812
    SaparotRob
    SaparotRob
    tomo pauk
    Polish outfitting & positioning of their armed forces, 1935-39(40?)
    Replies
    0
    Views
    7
    tomo pauk
    tomo pauk
    Back