Shortround6
Major General
Ir would take between 4 and 8 months to retool the factory and get the production back up to the same numbers of planes per month.
It isn't always about the money.
.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
All those planes had multiple contracts, just build out the initial contract and move on to the P-51. Same Allison engine, same propellers, North American is part of GM so facilities and $$ shouldn't be a problem.
That is pretty much what happened wasn't it?All those planes had multiple contracts, just build out the initial contract and move on to the P-51. Same Allison engine, same propellers, North American is part of GM so facilities and $$ shouldn't be a problem.
You'll also need to keep producing one of either the P-39 or P-40 to provide to our allies since you don't want to be giving the Russians a plane with the range of the P-51. And you'll need that plane to use until the P-51 becomes operational in July '42. In July '42 neither the P-38 nor the P-47 are in combat yet.
All those planes had multiple contracts, just build out the initial contract and move on to the P-51. Same Allison engine, same propellers, North American is part of GM so facilities and $$ shouldn't be a problem.
You'll also need to keep producing one of either the P-39 or P-40 to provide to our allies since you don't want to be giving the Russians a plane with the range of the P-51. And you'll need that plane to use until the P-51 becomes operational in July '42. In July '42 neither the P-38 nor the P-47 are in combat yet.
...and less risky.P-40 as it is the more versatile a/c.
Bell would soon be building B-24s and B-29s, but had it's hands full with the YFM, XFL, XP-52 and P-39 before the war and ended up with several more irons in the fire by 1941.As with other failing companies, Bell could have been tooled up to make P-40s
As with other failing companies, Bell could have been tooled up to make P-40s
Well you can have planes with engines and arms, even complete aerodynamic principles that didn't exist, transplanted into a different era what is the problem with a minor issue like range?I
Complaints about the short range of the P-47 will be filed in the circular bin, until somebody explains how a fighter with roughly twice the range of most European fighters of the time Ion internal fuel) is considered "short ranged". .
"Don't need THAT much range; the bombers will always get through. What we need is a high altitude air superiority fighter/interceptor"Well you can have planes with engines and arms, even complete aerodynamic principles that didn't exist, transplanted into a different era what is the problem with a minor issue like range?
How so? P-40 was slower, climbed slower, had a lower ceiling and about the same range. They both had one centerline external store.P-40 as it is the more versatile a/c.
Your great uncle's P-36 weighed 5700#. His P-39 was a ton heavier and was 50mph faster.There is never going to be a simple conclusion to the P-39 - seriously.
The aircraft had it's merits and it had it's shortcomings, like ALL aircraft will have.
I suspect, though, that the opinion of P-39 in American service may be along the lines of the F2A Buffalo, in retrospect.
The American pilots of the F2A were not schooled in the current day's tactics. They were also not combat veterans so when they hit the IJN fighters head-on, they had a steep learning curve ahead of them.
This too, may hold true to the USAAC pilots, who were thrust into the P-39's cockpit and given a crash-course.
The reason why I am touching on this, is because that's exactly what happened to my great-uncle, who was trained in the P-36, love his P-36 and was forever hateful that his P-36 sat idle on an auxiliary field on Oahu, 7 December 1941, lacking ammunition and fuel.
Shortly after Pearl, his P-36 was traded for a P-39 and he was rushed through training on it and he hated the Airacobra with a passion. He always stated that he would have gladly gone up to face any and all Japanese opponents in his P-36 than with a P-39...fortunately for him, he had an opportunity to train on the P-38, which he jumped at the chance and ended up flying them in the PTO for the duration.
So I am left to wonder if the characteristics of the P-39 ran contrary to his comfort zone, being experianced in the well-performing P-36 and then shoved into the cockpit of the unknown P-39, tending to cloud his judgement of the Airacobra to a certain degree.
Hello All,
Seems like we are all attempting to make radical adjustments to history with what we know in hindsight.
How about we take a slightly different approach and adjust with knowledge available at the time.
What was really so WRONG with the P-39 that made it less than successful except in Soviet service? Weight. Soviets removed the usless .30 caliber wing guns.
One problem was reliability which was solved after some time. Generally considered more reliable than the P-40 in terms of TBO, daily readiness.
The other problem was that the Center of Gravity migrated too far aft and the aircraft became unstable as disposable loads were expended. And had no effect on normal flight. In order to have any chance of "tumbling" the nose ammo had to be expended, then a vertical climb until near stalling speed, then pull back hard on the stick. To spin or "tumble" a plane had to stall first and the P-39 had excellent stall characteristics.
The Soviets had a different philosophy for fighter armament.
Their preference was for guns close to the centerline and their fighters tended to be more lightly armed than other Allied fighters.
They had very efficient machine guns and were satisfied with just one or two fuselage mounted MG with a motor cannon.
They removed the wing guns from most of their Airacobra. Which made them lighter with much better climb/ceiling.
Americans seem to want every piece of equipment onboard every aircraft and end up with some pretty heavy aircraft. Absolutely true.
Some items such as the mooring kit and engine tool kit and other such service items probably did not need to be carried on the aircraft.
The choice of the Soviets to remove wing armament probably would not have been satisfactory because it would have only left three guns all with fairly low cyclic rates, so to make up for that, I believe it would have been a good idea to go back to the armament arrangement of the P-39C and restore the two synchronized .30 cal MG in place of the wing guns.
The armour for the propeller gearbox could be removed to partially compensate for the weight. Problem there is space for those two .30s reduced the ammunition capacity of the 37mm cannon (main armament) by 50%. Plus the added weapons that had little effect on the enemy and their rate of fire was further reduced by propeller synchronization. The .30s were the biggest problem of the P-39 and were not used on any other production US fighter.
In addition, to help adjust the CoG forward, standard load for the .50 should be adjusted to 270 rounds per gun as the Soviets did with their Airacobra. The Radio could be moved to the area behind the cockpit above the engine without significantly affecting visibility from the cockpit. It would only block visibility into the aft fuselage because of where the pilot sits.
To reduce weight, the armour plate from the Turnover Bulkhead could be removed; The bulk of the engine is behind the pilot for protection. The armour plate for the oil tank perhaps should be removed as well because of the large moment arm it has from the aircraft CoG. In my opinion the armor plate/glass was absolutely necessary except for the nose reduction gearbox armor (100#) and a couple of small plates on the turnover bulkhead outside of the rear armor glass (16#).
So far, this is the minimally invasive approach. Actually the minimally invasive approach would be for the crew chief at forward bases to remove the underpowered wing guns (and related equipment), the nose armor plate, and move the radios up from the tail cone for balance. Climb and ceiling are greatly increased with only a small reduction in firepower. This is applicable to the early P-39s (D through M). The N climb and ceiling were just fine even with the wing guns/nose armor, but removing them would just make it better.
From test reports, it appears that the CoG of the Airacobra doesn't really migrate very much even on the early versions.
A heavily loaded Airacobra tends to have a CoG at around 25% MAC.
A normal loaded Airacobra tends to have a CoG at around 28% MAC.
An Airacobra without disposable loads in place has CoG at around 30% MAC.
This migration of CoG isn't very great so there is probably something else going on.
Perhaps the airfoil being used has a very odd pitching moment?
The problems in handling seem to be related to lack of stability due to CoG being too far aft.
If this is the case, then perhaps it would have made sense to redesign the outer wing panels with greater sweep as was done on the Ilyushin IL-2 when a rear gunner was added and changed the CoG.
It would also be the chance to go to a more conventional non-symmetric airfoil and possibly increase the wing area a bit to compensate for the increased weight over that of the prototype aircraft.
Thoughts?
- Ivan.
On the plus side, his uncle was there, had first hand experience, knew what he was talking about and wasn't some kind of "expert"Your great uncle's P-36 weighed 5700#. His P-39 was a ton heavier and was 50mph faster.
Can you give me a hand with this armour guns and ammo, we are putting them in and out again.On the plus side, his uncle was there, had first hand experience, knew what he was talking about and wasn't some kind of "expert"