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

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

"Don't need THAT much range; the bombers will always get through. What we need is a high altitude air superiority fighter/interceptor"
I suspect tongue firmly in cheek. That said, Arnold was well aware during the Spanish Civil War, Blitzkrieg and then Battle of Britain - that the bomber frequently did not get through. The primary issues for both the Brits and US were a.) a single engine fighter with the fuel weight fraction necessary to extend to target range could not compete with the interceptors of the day, and b.) that multi engine aircraft with the fuel fraction potential, would be equally handicapped, but the only technologically feasible (at that time) escort solution. He personally changed the Kilner-Lindbergh and Emmons Report recommendations of low priority for long range (1500 miles) fighter to first, was his own vision that a 'back up' contingency that B-17 high speed and altitude would not be enough to support the Army Air Force War Plans Directive in the future.

Three factors in early-mid 1942 changed the game. Rolls-Royce took the initiative to push the hybrid Merlin 60 series engine/Mustang graft. NAA was finally supported by Arnold and the Planning/Military Requirements Divisions to recognize the Allison Mustang as superior to both the P-40 and P-39 - and run over Echols at MD who recommended converting Mustang production to B-25s. Arnold personally met with top RAF officials along with Winant and Hitchcock in May 1942 to get a briefing on the 'hybrid'. At that moment in time Packard was well on its way to production tooling for the 1650-3, but RAF/and the BAM were already discussing possible license production of NA-91 w/Merlin 65 in Britain.

The political maneuvering between AAF-HQ, AAF-MD, NAA, GM, Allison and RAF/BAM as the 'projects' unfolded in May-June 1942 when AAF awarded NA-101 conversion of two NA-91 airframes from Allison to Packard 1650-3 were intense (understatement).

Another extremely important intiative by AAF was the Long Range Extension Program initiated in March/April 1942 which embraced not only external combat tank integration into the contractor specifications but also mandated increasing internal fuel. Lockheed was already in compliance with external rack/fuel feed plumbing in the P-38, NAA had already integrated the same into the forthcoming A-36 and was testing in NA-83 AM118 in May. Republic figured out what was required to install the plumbing and racks as kits for P-47C/D through the P-47D-11 but they were very labor and time intensive throughout 1943 after first testing in June 1943.
 
Well, I guess my math is not as great as yours.
P-39D clean: 5,400 pounds
P-38F clean: 12,250 pounds.
That looks to be almost 7 tons difference. (Actually 6,850 lbs difference)

P-39D loaded: 7,500 pounds.
P-38F loaded: 15,900 pounds.
There appears to be about 8 tons difference. (Actually 8,400 lbs difference)

But I suppose counting on fingers can be confusing...
Hmm...

Going by what I thought was a U.S. ton (2,000 lbs)

5,400 = 2.70 tons
12,250 = 6.125 tons
6.125 - 2.7 = 3.425 tons difference

7,500 = 3.75 tons
15,900 = 7.95 tons
7.95 - 3.75 = 4.20 tons

I could be wrong, math is not my strongest ability...

Cheers
 
At that moment in time Packard was well on its way to production tooling for the 1650-3, but RAF/and the BAM were already discussing possible license production of NA-91 w/Merlin 65 in Britain.

I believe there was also a proposal to import Mustangs to Britain and install Merlins at a conversion centre, possibly run by Rolls-Royce.
 
I thought that was because they were playing ze Germans...:D
It was a never ending discussion in German bars. Whether a penalty is 11 meters or 12 yards and why the English always miss lol. It is obviously 12 yards, the goal is 8 yards by 8 feet, and the boxes are 6 yards and 18 yards with a 10 yard radius on the penalty spot and centre circle. Only the penalty spot a metric measurement by pure chance.
 
Universal metric acceptance can't come soon enough
I know the imperial system but never actually used it from the age of about 8. However I worked in the oil gas industry which is still governed by API specifications so even within Europe tally lists are produced in metric and imperial for weight and length. There may be some issues if they decide to change the gauge on railways though.
 
Last edited:
I have for years told people, if we had been born with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, the world would use the imperial system. I then point out twice as many numbers are evenly divisible into 12 as 10.
 
I have for years told people, if we had been born with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, the world would use the imperial system. I then point out twice as many numbers are evenly divisible into 12 as 10.
If you buy a ton of anything, one tenth is too heavy for anyone to lift, the practical limit is 1/20th of a ton which is 1 hundredweight. Most imperial measures evolved because of practical use, which is pragmatic but becomes difficult to impossible for calculations.
 
Do you mean measuring horses by how many hands high?
Things like that. An acre was based on how much an average horse could plough in a day, so if you know an acreage you know how many horses/days you need to plough it. A hand is used to measure horses because a foot is too big, one hand is four inches or 1/3 of a foot. It is the same in foot measurements using barleycorns which are 1/3 of an inch.
 
In the US, for a great many years land was measured with a chain of exact length which laid on the ground, but since the use of transits and optical measuring, the property lines of old established land are being moved. Differing measuring systems have always caused difficulty. Rifles of US and UK manufacture have the rear sites marked in yards, while European rifles were in meters, and Russian rifles were in Arshins.
 
Now that everyone has taken the bait, maybe we can stop beating this dead horse. If P-39's were great, we would see a lot more of them as collectibles. Instead, we see P-40's,P51's, F6f"s, F4U's, P-38's, Spitfires, and so on. There are a few more P-39's than MS-406's though.
 
In the US, for a great many years land was measured with a chain of exact length which laid on the ground, but since the use of transits and optical measuring, the property lines of old established land are being moved. Differing measuring systems have always caused difficulty. Rifles of US and UK manufacture have the rear sites marked in yards, while European rifles were in meters, and Russian rifles were in Arshins.
Same in UK, an acre is a chain (22 yards) x a furlong 220yards (furrow length). A horse or pair of oxen need a rest after ploughing a furrow. In a game of Cricket the wickets are 1 chain apart.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back