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


Heyyy....wait a minute!!! I've just figured out the primary role for the YB-40. It was to escort the P-39. The YB-40 as heavily armed, and could fly at higher altitude to protect the P-39 from being bounced from above. It also had longer operating range so it could loiter over the entirety of the P-39 mission.

Sounds like a war-winner to me!!!
 
Sorry, but my numbers are not wrong. I did use 16 gallons for warm up and climb instead of 20, I was looking at the P-39Q chart. So deduct 4 gallons if you want. You don't use both the 20gal reserve for warm up AND the fuel from sea level (31.2gal in your example) from the climb data chart. Just the warmup/takeoff/climb to 5000ft. Range includes climb but not descent. Since the pilot is climbing in the direction of the target at 170mph IAS he is effectively cruising at that speed until desired altitude is reached, about 10 minutes. The difference in climb speed and cruising speed for 10 minutes is negligible. Total fuel less allowance for warmup/takeoff/climb less combat reserve less landing reserve gives net fuel. Divide by gallons per hour to get cruising time and multiply by TAS (IAS converted) and that equals range. Everything is on the Flight Operation Instruction Chart you posted. I'm using the 120gal P-39.

If the P-39 and the F4U are used for the same mission then they have to use the same formula and mission profile. Takeoff and climb to 25000ft, cruise at maximum cruise, 20 minutes of combat and cruise back at maximum cruise with a 20 minute reserve for landing. The Navy used a cruise out at 15000ft at V max for max range (182mph) and then cruise back at 1500ft at V max range. That works fine for over water flights where the chance of encountering the enemy is small, but that won't work at all for escort or interception missions over land as the AAF did. Cruising out at 15000ft or cruising back at 1500ft would be suicidal.
 
Please see my post #1503.
 
Please see my post #1503.
 
Please see my post #1503.
 
In Post 1503, you say cruising out and returning at 15,000 feet would be suicidal. That's EXACTLY why USN and USAAF airplanes are different ... they have differing requirements and different missions. So, there is no real point in comparing them for missions since they do different things. Hence, two different services.

You made the point perfectly. Navy/Marine and Air Corps airplanes were not going to do the same missions very often, so there is no point in comparing the two.

So don't. Compare instead against aircraft that would be flying the same missions.
 
I said cruising back at 1500ft, not 15000ft.

It's the only way to compare a land based AAF plane to a land based Navy carrier plane if they were flying the same missions.
 
There is really no point in comparing Naval and non-Naval aircraft for mission range.

The only time they are likely to tangle is if land planes attack a carrier task force. If that DOES happen, the range is immaterial since the carrier planes are essentially operating very close to home and the land planes have to have whatever range is required to attack the carriers and get back. The only performance characteristics that matter in that case are performance numbers such as turn. climb, speed, and armament, not range.
 
WRONG - read the chart!!!!

DOES IT SAY THE 20 MINUTE WARM UP IS INCLUDED?!?!?

no!

I'll blow it up for you



"TIME FROM SL" FUEL FROM SL"

SL = SEA LEVEL - IT'S THAT SIMPLE!!!!

IT'S CLEARLY SHOWN THAT IF CLIMB FROM SEA LEVEL TO 25000 FEET AT 140 INDICATED, DEPENDING ON CLIMB ANGLE AND POWER USED, YOU'RE GOING TO REACH 25000 FEET IN EITHER 13.9 MINUTES OR 29.9 MINUTES AND BURN EITHER 39.9 GALLONS OR 31.2 GALLONS, CLIMBING 800' PER MINUTE OR 600' PER MINUTE! I USED NUMBERS THAT GAVE THE BEST CLIMB WHILE USING THE LEAST AMOUNT OF FUEL (AND GOD, THE P-39 NEEDED IT)

(AND THIS IN A NO WIND, STANDARD ATMOSPHERIC DAY)


Just the warmup/takeoff/climb to 5000ft. Range includes climb but not descent.

ARE YOU SERIOUS????

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT?!?!?! YOU'RE STILL BURNING FUEL IN DESCENT OR ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME YOU TURN THE MOTOR OFF?!?!?


Since the pilot is climbing in the direction of the target at 170mph IAS he is effectively cruising at that speed until desired altitude is reached, about 10 minutes.

NOW YOU'RE ADDING YOUR OWN INTERPETATION. IS IT VX OR VY OR DO EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?

The difference in climb speed and cruising speed for 10 minutes is negligible. Total fuel less allowance for warmup/takeoff/climb less combat reserve less landing reserve gives net fuel.
WHERE DOES IT SAY TO DO THAT?!?
Divide by gallons per hour to get cruising time and multiply by TAS (IAS converted) and that equals range. Everything is on the Flight Operation Instruction Chart you posted. I'm using the 120gal P-39.

AGAIN, THIS SHOWS YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!! HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET TAS??? YOU DON'T KNOW PRESSURE ALTITUDE AND TEMPERATURE IN THIS EXAMPLE!!!!

IT WAS OBVIOUS THIS WAS HYPOTHETICAL SO TEMPS AND PRESSURE ALTITUDE WAS NOT FACTORED IN,


If the P-39 and the F4U are used for the same mission then they have to use the same formula and mission profile.

AND THAT WAS CLEARLY DONE BASED ON COMPARING THE TWO AIRCRAFT TO AN AAF INTERCEPT MISSION!!!! I added the 3000' cruise to actually give a nudge to the P-39!!!!

NOW YOU'RE ADDING HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS - I POSTED WHAT BOTH AIRCRAFT WILL DO IN THE SAME SITUATION AND SHOWED EXACTLY HOW IS DONE AND EVEN GAVE A "NUDGE" TO THE P-39. NO WHERE DO YOU SHOW FUEL CONSUMPTION BASED ON THE CHART DATA! IT'S QUITE CLEAR BY THE DATA CLEARLY SHOWN HOW THE P-39 WAS OUT-PERFORMED!!!!

ONCE AGAIN, YOU'RE MIS-INTERPERTING THE CHART, JUST LIKE YOU DID THE WEIGHT AND BALANCE CHART!!!
 
Last edited:
Hey Fubar57,

There was also a B-24 with a B-17 nose grafted on:



You just never know what they will come up with, such as:



The Leduc 0.10 is certainly a strange bird. Ask the erstwhile pilot above!. If someone was attacking you from the rear, how would you know it was anything but an engine failure? Certainly not by turning around and looking over the tail!

Then we have a Russian candidate:



This adds fuel to the adage that, "If it is weird, it is British; if it is ugly, it is French; if it is weird AND ugly, it is Russian." Talk about a flying tank!
 
You don't use both the 20gal reserve for warm up AND the fuel from sea level (31.2gal in your example) from the climb data chart. Just the warmup/takeoff/climb to 5000ft.

Gee - lookie here...



and smack in the middle of the cruise charts it says...



Why is that???

EDIT!

Because on the climb chart it says this:



So I'll stand to be correct but let's look at numbers;

90 gallons internal, climb to 25K 31.2 gallons 20 for warm up and take off, 11.2 for climb

90 - 31.2 = 58.8 gallons fuel left at 25K

You made a claim that internal fuel was 120 gallons, ok...

120 - 31.2 = 88.8 gallons.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that gives an extra 20 gallons. Where do you want to use it?

Suppose we put it in the cruise home at 3000' - according to the cruise chart that buys you up to 120 miles @ 217mph cruise, so now the mission profile I completed goes to 402 miles with no reserve

BUT

If the internal fuel is 90 gallons, you lose 10 gallons which puts you at 342 miles with no reserve.

EDIT - The flight manual that I have for the P-39N shows 90 gallons in the W&B 87 useable.


 

Attachments

  • 1621911631768.png
    3.5 KB · Views: 27
  • 1621912052840.png
    10.6 KB · Views: 21
  • 1621917624217.png
    111.3 KB · Views: 24
Last edited:
Interesting. Also remember you are doing a single ship. Add more aircraft, use more fuel for ground ops, takeoff, and rejoin. The more you add, the more fuel you use, and the shorter the range.
From our resident fighter pilot, thank you Biff!

BTW - I went back and looked at the numbers and in the descent for the P-39 coming down from 25K down to 3000' I could have used a best fuel consumption of 32 GPH at 215 mph indicated. Would have added an extra 20 miles but used less than a half gallon more.
 

Users who are viewing this thread