Thumpalumpacus
Major
Sound like a great front-line aircraft to me.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If it was set incorrectly it would explode when the cockpit door was slammed shut.
Generally between 1 and 3 hits from a 20 mm cannon would take down an S/E aircraft, a Typhoon was firing 16 times as many shells per second.Your comment about the effect of a hit by the 37 is, again overly simplistic. You are correct in that a hit would ruin anyone's day but compared to the 20mm Hispano II
37mm rof 150 rpm mv 2,000ft/min
20mm rof 600 rpm mv 2,700ft/min
You are far more likely to be hit by multiple 20mm rounds which would also ruin anyone's day
The P-47, P-38, F6F and F4F all came out before the P-51B/C, FM2 or F8F, so the services were moving to 4 50calMGs. The P-51D went to six, but by then air superiority over Europe had been won and it didn't really matter. If a plane is too heavy it aint cutting the mustard as you say. If you can lighten it then it can cut the mustard.Actually, the USAAF had moved to six .50s in the -51, eight in the -47, four .50s and a cannon in the -38, and the Navy in 1943 had standardized on the F6F's six .50s, so I'm seeing a bit of underselling here on your part. Oh, and the F4U1 had six .50s as well.
If you're pulling guns, armor, and the goddamned radio to get climb or maneuverability, your plane probably ain't cutting the mustard.
wwiiaircraftperformance.org shows the Typhoon to make 375mph at 10000ft and 395mph at 20000ft and climbed at 2000fpm at 20000ft. The P-39N was at least as fast and outclimbed the Typhoon by 600fpm at all altitudes.No one would deny that there was a disappointment in the altitude performance of the Typhoon, but your statement Only reason the Typhoon was a fighter bomber was because it couldn't do interception at high altitude is as ever, far too simplistic.
The RAF had the Spitfire as an interceptor which was always very effective at altitude. What the Typhoon had in its favour was the following:-
a) an exceptional low level performance at low / medium altitude Reaching approx 400mph at 8,800ft 415mph at 20,000ft, a lot faster than a Spitfire
b) The capability of carrying very heavy payload of up to 2,000lb plus of course 4 x 20mm
c) It was well armoured with pilot eventually sitting in almost a bath of armour
Lets look at those parameters on the P39
a) P39N 398 mph at 9,700ft 389 mph at 16,100ft Both are very quick and its likely that the inevitable differences you get in mass production would make them very similar.
b) I am not sure what the GA capability of the P39 is but it seems to be in the area of 500lb of bombs which isn't even close to the capability of the Typhoon
c) Again I haven't seen anything that shows the P39 as having anything remotely close to the armour protection of the Typhoon
Note the P39Q seems to have a worse performance
The RAF lacks a GA aircraft and the Typhoon had all the right attributes, that's why it was the RAF's premier GA aircraft.
Your comment about the effect of a hit by the 37 is, again overly simplistic. You are correct in that a hit would ruin anyone's day but compared to the 20mm Hispano II
37mm rof 150 rpm mv 2,000ft/min
20mm rof 600 rpm mv 2,700ft/min
You are far more likely to be hit by multiple 20mm rounds which would also ruin anyone's day
Yes, these things happen in a world war, the Hurricane had armour and self sealing tanks installed along with all sorts of radio gizmos and 4 cannon. It was a world war not a Reno handicap race.It was most certainly the British who changed the requirements, it was their production contract and it was amended more than once. They signed the initial contract without armor plate and added it during the construction process as they realized it was needed.
I do know that, but you continue to try to use issues like this to justify most of your arguments. And again, if you take weight out of the nose by installing a lighter cannon you're making matters worse! If you want, I'll do a weight balance calculation with a 20 mm cannon and remove the gear box armor.The 20mm cannon was just an example to illustrate that Bell was able to balance the P-39/400 with either cannon in the nose even though one was 140lbs lighter than the other. Surely you know that, right?
There are diagrams that show "radios" in the tail and behind the pilot. If you have any other data or equipment/ weight lists that you could share, we'd really appreciate it!re the IFF in early P-39s in the PTO.
The first IFF used by the US was the UK IFF Mk I 'Pipsqueak' or RC-96-A in US terms, which was basically just an intermittent broadcast circuit for the radio transmitter set. This sent out a predetermined pulse of abut 14 seconds, switched back to normal radio operation for a predetermined time, then sent out the 14 sec pulse again, etc. The frequency of the pulse was the same as the radar detecting it.
I know this was used with the SCR-522 VHF set (BC-608-A) fitted in the P-39 in the PTO. I have seen diagrams and weight lists.
I think it was also used in some of the early airframes fitted with the SCR-274 sets (BC-608-A & BC-616). I have seen weight lists but not any diagrams of the fit.
I have also read accounts about the US using 'Pipsqueak' in the PTO but I do not remember where or exactly why, other than to help not get shot down by US or Australian friendlies.
wwiiaircraftperformance.org shows the Typhoon to make 375mph at 10000ft and 395mph at 20000ft and climbed at 2000fpm at 20000ft. The P-39N was at least as fast and outclimbed the Typhoon by 600fpm at all altitudes.
The P-47, P-38, F6F and F4F all came out before the P-51B/C, FM2 or F8F, so the services were moving to 4 50calMGs. The P-51D went to six, but by then air superiority over Europe had been won and it didn't really matter. If a plane is too heavy it aint cutting the mustard as you say. If you can lighten it then it can cut the mustard.
Only reason the Typhoon was a fighter bomber was because it couldn't do interception at high altitude. P-39 was a beast at low altitude, go to wwiiaircraftperformance and compare them with the Typhoon. And one hit from a 37mm cannon will definitely ruin your day no matter what you are flying.
Tell that to Messerschmitt, Yakovlev, Lavochkin, and companyOne cannon and two .50s ain't really a suitable armament suite for 1942-43 in a plane that is struggling to keep up on performance parameters as well. Add in short range and limited altitude performance, meh.
F4U-1s were landing on carriers from their inception. VF-17 was to be the fighter complement on board USS Bunker Hill (CV-17) but was pulled off when the carrier reached Hawaii. They flew from land bases because the Navy wanted to keep their fleet air wings standardized and Grumman was cranking out a lot of F6Fs. The RN was flying Corsairs from jeep carriers long before the USN decided to upgrade the fleet air wings in the face of kamikaze attacks. The F4U's speed advantage being a key consideration. VF-17 did a one off during the Navy's attack on Rabaul, 11 Nov 1943. Flying from their land base they flew CAP for the fleet, landed on the carriers to refuel and then flew another CAP before returning to their base. During this mission they engaged an enemy air attack as well as shot down enemy snoopers.No it couldn't land on a carrier, but then neither could the F4U-1. And range was equivalent to either the Navy fighters.
Tell that to Messerschmitt, Yakovlev, Lavochkin, and company
Tell that to Messerschmitt, Yakovlev, Lavochkin, and company