FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
What irks me is we clearly identified what manuals were being used and then he jumps back and forth from the N to the Q when the charts suit the discussion, then adds 120 gallons of fuel into the equation.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Last part, isn't that true to an extent for most fighters in WW2? Like the Spitfire, it performed greatly in Europe, but didn't have the same impact on the Pacific arena. Other way around for the Hellcat and the Corsair etc.It could not compete in western Europe and, despite having the opportunity, it failed in the Pacific. Yes, the Soviets loved it and it was great for that theatre. It does not mean it was useful anywhere else.
Questions that have been asked before but need to be asked again.
Yes, Kenney decided the P-39/P-400 was a dud. However, that was after some of the Pacific theatre airframes had the wing guns removed...and still the performance didn't cut it. If it had, and if the mod was worth doing, surely Kenney would have ordered all his P-39s and P-400s to be so modified? And yet, instead, he bins the P-39 in favour of the P-38. That screams to me that, for all the coulda-woulda-shoulda, the P-39 lacked performance for that theatre.
AgreeAs for Europe, you'd definitely need the IFF...so no weight saving there. My observation that the early cannon-armed Spits retained 4x303s in the wings was blissfully ignored. Now we learn that the supposedly world-beating P-39N had a critical altitude some 5K below that of the Spitfire MkV which entered service in early 1941.
Agree 100%. I also believe that during it's development and early deployment the CG issues and false performance claims eventually pissed off the AAF. As we both know having worked a bit around aircraft, if you have an aircraft that is naturally tail heavy, this could be easily adjusted with ballast, but it seems that Bell initially refuse to accept the fact that the aircraft had C/G issues.I'm willing to accept that the P-39 may have been a better performer than previously credited. However, it was NOT a world-beater. It could not compete in western Europe and, despite having the opportunity, it failed in the Pacific. Yes, the Soviets loved it and it was great for that theatre. It does not mean it was useful anywhere else.
That he ditched the 39 in favor of the Lightning ASAP, well, if that doesn't speak volumes to you about the respective aircraft, I don't know what does.
You left out its ability as a night fighter/bomber stopping battleship bombardments of Henderson Field on Guadalcanal, torpedoing Musashi off Leyte, mining Tokyo Bay and dropping both A bombs.I understand it was really P-39s that intercepted Yamamoto but it was reported as P-38s to keep the P-39s ability secret.
The P-38's just flew top cover over the P-39's on that interception. This was in case the IJN was flying P-39's captured from the Soviets.I understand it was really P-39s that intercepted Yamamoto but it was reported as P-38s to keep the P-39s ability secret.
Old news, it's now believed that an American professor at Harvard created the virus and secretly sold it to China. Can't believe you're that outdated on your conspiracy theoriesI'm off to check websites about 5G cell towers causing COVID 19!!
That is the basis of the premise. If the British had accepted the P-39C instead of making up stuff to get out of a contract, the very similar slightly modified P-39N (which only had a different "impeller" whatever that is) could have won the Battle of Britain and gone on to be the saviour of the western world.It's all part of the great conspiracy against the P-39, which included Perfidious Albion and persists to this very day in all the negative press that the P-39 receives. We're all mistaken in our understanding of the P-39 but our resident expert, alone, has recognized the truth.
Old news, it's now believed that an American professor at Harvard created the virus and secretly sold it to China. Can't believe you're that outdated on your conspiracy theories
The one that the professor sold to China of course..What virus?
The one that the professor sold to China of course..
This one looked like 6 50's with only two firing on the left side like #3 was jammed.
The reduction from 120 USG to 87 USG was to reduce weight, like you've been banging on about for years now.
The N and Q were produced with 87 USG from the factory. Kits could be applied in the field to bring them up to 120USG, but how many were fitted and where? The first 160+ N models had 120gal internal fuel. P-39Q had full 120gal fuel from the -10 model through the end of production -30 model. Don't know how many kits were fitted.
Did the wings have the facilities for extra fuel tanks where the guns were mounted? Wings had the SPACE to mount fuel tanks where the wing guns were mounted.
So much to parse out, well...
So, you're guessing at the TAS? No, it's printed in the range chart. Just mislabeled as IAS.
Because it fits your narrative better? No, because it is what I believe.
Why should the range discussion be based on non-factual data? The plane did not have 120 gallons of internal fuel, it also had wing guns instead of any extra fuel in that space and therefore it weighed what it weighed, there's no getting around those two FACTS. Almost 4000 N/Q had full 120gal fuel.
Why do you suppose that was? You don't think a general in command of a numbered air force with responsibilities for the entire theater was unaware of any changes in hardware coming down the pipeline? I'd wage General Kenney was eminently aware of what aircraft with attending upgrades were in the works or on the horizon. Bottom line, the short ranged low altitude P-39 was not a viable asset for his command. Hell, he even had reservations about getting the P-47 because of range issues with the Thunderbolt. So when it came to the P-39 he correctly said Nyet. First N model test was in mid October 1942, Kenney may not have known their performance. P-38s were already ordered.
Why do you think the AAF ditched the Airacobra for the P-38 and the Thunderbolt? Perhaps AAF leadership was cognizant of realities you are not, like ETO ops required high altitude long range, and more importantly, high performance fighters, something the P-39 was incapable of achieving. You're saying your smarter than all the AAF gentlemen (and RAF) that tested, flew, examined etc. this plane and universally reached the conclusion that it was not suited for any combat EXCEPT short range low altitude ops? Also, the VVS fought a different war than did the AAF or the RAF, or are we forgetting this? Certainly I'm not smarter, but I do have benefit of hindsight that they did not have. N was not a low altitude plane. VVS fought a tactical war but the Luftwaffe was not limited to low altitude. N/Q were successful because they could operate at Luftwaffe altitudes.
And we still have the questions
a) How much weight is involved adding the extra fuel plus its tanks and plumbing 6 pounds per gallon of fuel and 2 pounds per gallon for tanks. 30 gallons = 240lbs.
b) If the N was so good why was it replaced with the Q which had less performance Absolutely no earthly idea. Why were the D/F/K/L so heavy for available power when they could have been easily and quickly lightened? Why add external gun pods that produce drag? Especially when the podded 50s weighed almost twice as much as the internal 30s? These are questions I can't answer.
c) You don't just rip out guns and add fuel No, you remove the guns, ammo boxes, chargers and heaters and replace them with wing fuel tanks. The P-38 removed wing intercoolers and replaced them with fuel tanks. Certainly could be done.
d) what is the performance of the N with the extra weight. My guess is that it will be very similar to the P39Q which was a very similar aircraft, which in turn knocks great holes in your claim for the P39N being such a wonder weapon Go to wwiiaircraftperformance.org and look up the P-39N and Q. Just reinforces my claim.