FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep - by putting 90 pounds of ballast in the nose!
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I never said that anyone ever removed the gear box armor. It's just an idea. But if they did, appropriate measures could be taken to keep the plane within the CG limits.
Yep - by putting 90 pounds of ballast in the nose!
I was joking when I suggested thatYep - by putting 90 pounds of ballast in the nose!
ETA: I edited this post to remove Bell from the list of has-beens because they did of course do good work on heloes for decades after WWII.
Bell was successful with helicopters because of the very talented Arthur Young. Personally after all the SNAFUs encountered during WW2 and with other manufacturers surpassing Bell's ability to design and produce modern fighter aircraft, I think it was a smart business move to concentrate on helicopters as the core business. Larry Bell died in 1956 IIRC but the helicopter division flourished until it was sold to Textron in 1960. By then it was an entirely different company.
I read years ago in a link I can no longer find that RAF 601 squadron had a Russian aviation expert attached to them when they were using the P-39. So when the P-39 arrived in Russia they had a good idea of what to do to make it a success. (MaybeDimlee can help with this). Did Bell have their own test pilots or any real feedback from pilots in the field? I just cant understand why this CoG issue went on throughout the war, with Bell designing a replacement for the P-39 and designing in the same ffing problem.
One thing I picked up from reading various "bits" was that on the eastern front rate of roll was prized over rate of turn. If conflict starts at a lower altitude and they all descend to the ground then rate of roll is more important and ditching wing guns is one of the few things you can do to improve it.I think the Soviets did everything they could to make the P-39 a formidable weapon. I also think the environment the Soviets operated the P-39 in was the perfect niche for this aircraft. Agree with our "Expert" friend, "remove the wing guns and the IFF (with the Soviets not having a requirement for IFF, a little crazy if you ask me!) Earlier I showed some calculations that with the IFF removed and the radios moved forward, you're going to get the CG within the middle range with ammo depleted and 1/4 full tanks, even further forward when full of fuel and fully armed. The Soviets knew the P-39 (and P-63) was tail heavy as documented, so I think they might have done other things to get C/G to move more forward (ballast?)
As far as the AAF - in the Pacific the P-39 (along with the P-40) was doomed to be pushed aside by the P-38, a weapon the 5th AF General Kenny made his primary acquisition. In The Med and Europe, we saw how quickly the P-39 was placed in secondary roles once other aircraft came on scene, so I think the AAF knew of these deficiencies and just operated around them.
We do know a lot of P-39s were used in training, many were also lost (like other aircraft of the day) but that's naturally going to happen in a training environment.
I find it funny that after all the controversy with the P-39, folks at Bell STILL continued to ignore lessons learned when they were developing the P-63.
As well documented, some pilots loved the aircraft many hated it. It's reputation wasn't set by a few disgruntled pilots, every WW2 I ever met who flew the aircraft did not have favorable things to say about it, at least two that I can recall "hated it." Instead of trying to theorize what "should have" been done, or what "could have" I think more emphasis should be placed on how it was operated, where it succeeded and where it failed. Historical facts rather than armchair engineering.
The cannon was always an enigma. The P-39 was the only AAF plane that used it. From what I have read the combat pilots were split about 50/50 vs. the alternate 20mm cannon in the P-400 and P-39D-1. The 37mm advocates liked its destructive power, the 20mm men liked the longer range and higher rate of fire. Personally I think I would have preferred the 20mm for the same reasons plus the lower weight.
It's almost funny how various air forces had their obsessions: The RLM wanted everything to be a dive-bomber, the USAAC/USAAF wanted everything to have a 37mm cannon and so on...The P-38 was supposed to get the 37mm, but they switched to the 20mm and never considered going back.
The British just wanted to screw up anything that came from the USA, its a historical fact, as can be seen from the P-40 and P-51. Actually it is utter bollocks. The British were doing R&D on the P-39 in a way they were never required to on the P-40 and P-51 which pretty much did what was said on the tin. This line of discussion from the expert holds no water at all.You made the claim the British ran the weight up unnecessarily. Show us how.
The British just wanted to screw up anything that came from the USA, its a historical fact, as can be seen from the P-40 and P-51. Actually it is utter bollocks. The British were doing R&D on the P-39 in a way they were never required to on the P-40 and P-51 which pretty much did what was said on the tin. This line of discussion from the expert holds no water at all.
As to the CG issue:
I may be misremembering, but I believe the P-39N model incorporated changes to alleviate the out-of-CG problem due to the expenditure of the nose gun ammo. What the exact changes were I do not know.