Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Was there ever a P-39 with a gross weight of 5,500lb? Not sure that any of the prototypes even reached that mark.
All your arguments for throwing away armour, IFF, moving radios, ditching guns, etc, only brings the weight down to 7,150lb to 7,250lb according to your estimations. What happened to the other 1,600+lb?
Perhaps if you throw out all the armour, all the guns and ammo you may get close. But what use is that?
Also, since you are arguing that the British should have had the P-39 without the "extra weight", the IFF should definitely stay. Because the British had radar and their aircraft had IFF.
There are so many P-39 threads that I simply can't keep up. I think I'm suffering from a kind of mania where I can't stop myself from checking in the vain hope that there's actually some new material or perspectives. I'm almost always disappointed.
Also they no longer needed them since the BoB was over and there would be no German invasion. And this was a cash contract not under lend-lease so they didn't want to pay for them.
No. 601 Squadron pilots found numerous flaws and weaknesses during their initial work-up with the the Airacobra. Some of them were a question of improving operational efficiency and pilot comfort, but others were considered essential to make the aircraft operational. Numerous modifications were made in the field in an attempt to make the aircraft suitable for combat. A master valve was introduced to allow oxygen to be turned on from the cockpit. The gunsight was modified to improve forward visibility. Changes to the ammunition tanks for the wing guns were made. Modifications were made to the cockpit harness release in order to simplify the operation. The IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe) set was removed from behind the pilot, where it obstructed aft view. A throttle control quadrant friction damper was introduced.
The Airacobra was considered to be very suitable for low altitude operations because of the excellent view and controllability, and it was fully maneuverable at speeds above 160 mph. It was not difficult to fly at night, but the exhaust flames could be seen by another aircraft flying three miles to the rear. The flash from the nose guns was blinding, and could cause the pilot to lose not only his target but also his night vision. Firing of the nose guns caused the buildup of carbon monoxide contamination in the cockpit, and this could reach a lethal level very quickly. The guns were fairly inaccessible, and maintenance was troublesome.
In spite of the problems with the compass and the need for flame dampers for the exhaust and flash suppressors for the nose guns, the RAF concluded that the Airacobra would make an excellent day fighter at altitudes below 20,000 feet and was well suited for the ground-attack role. However, before these plans could be implemented, a decision was made to divert the bulk of the British Airacobra contract to Russia.
Not to put too fine a point on it but uh... where's this 5,500lb empty weight P-39 Expert keeps coming up with?According to Greg's W&B calculator, if you removed all armor and guns and gunsight (what use is the gunsight without guns, right?) The weight comes down to 5,684 empty, 6,489 with fuel and oil
According to Greg's W&B calculator, if you removed all armor and guns and gunsight (what use is the gunsight without guns, right?) The weight comes down to 5,684 empty, 6,489 with fuel and oil
Unfortunately, Bell's glossy advertising brochures did not distinguish between the performance of a lightly-loaded, unarmed, highly-polished experimental prototype and a production fighter heavily-loaded with military equipment and armament, and the British were to rue the day that they ever looked at an Airacobra.
Not to put too fine a point on it but uh... where's this 5,500lb empty weight P-39 Expert keeps coming up with?
Yep - I think one thread is good enough for Groundhog's Day!And I am getting sick and tired of every thread being hijacked because of a P-39 fetish.
It is not surprising that the performance estimates of the P-39 at 5,500lb was not reflected in reality!
I can understand the need for some fuel, as long as no one gets carried away, but surely you dont need much oil?Oh - I forgot, Take away ALL the radios AND the IFF and you're down to about 5384 empty, 6189 with fuel and oil.
So the 5,500 pound claim can be made with no guns, no armor, no radios and no fuel!
Then I conclude that it was noted early on that the P-39 had CoG issues and the weight to solve the issue was added as armour.And it had nose armor...
Oh - I forgot, Take away ALL the radios AND the IFF and you're down to about 5384 empty, 6189 with fuel and oil.
So the 5,500 pound claim can be made with no guns, no armor, no radios and no fuel!
HERETIC!!! Why would you bring logic into this discussion?With regard to the answers from pbehn and Peter Gunn, why would one want to divert engines or better engines to the inferior airframe?
The XFL didn't have the 37mm (though it could) but instead, either a 20mm or .50MG and interestingly enough, it was a conventional gear layout (tail dragger) as the nose-gear was eliminated.Then I conclude that it was noted early on that the P-39 had CoG issues and the weight to solve the issue was added as armour.