Glider
Captain
As you wish
The P39N1 operating at temperatures that were higher than normal acceptable operating levels turned in a good performance but it should be noted that this was at the cost of a very low range and without any payload. This operating at above normal temperatures is no small thing. You can get away with it for a certain period of time but sooner or later it will bite you. P-38, P-47 and P-51 also had higher than acceptable operating temperatures. See my past post in this thread. My statement stands and applies to any performance stats posted on any aircraft of any nation. If you rely on higher than acceptable temperatures then sooner or later it will bite you
The Typhoon another aircraft of a similar era matched the performance of the P39N1 in the early years and comfortably exceed the performance of the P39N1 from early1944 on. It should also be noted that the Typhoon carrying 2,000lb of bombs had a greater range than the P39N1 when clean and about 1,000 miles with drop tanks. Not sure where you are getting this range figure, Typhoon had a huge engine and not a large fuel capacity. Do some research and you will soon find it. And by 1944 the P-39 should have had a two stage engine. We are in your fantasy world again. If you think something should have happened ask yourself this simple question. Why didn't it happen?
There is no doubt that the P39N1 has a better performance than the Typhoon at 25,000 ft but the range of the P39N1 would be close to miserable at that altitude and the chances of a successful interception low, make that very low if your spotted when climbing up. Range of a 120gal P-39N with a 110gal drop tank is about the same as a 1943 P-47 with the same drop tank. Long previous thread about that. Still, not great range but more fuel could be carried internally. A fighter with a 90 gallon internal capacity relying on a 120 gallon external tank, you really think that's a good idea?
You can of course add additional fuel tanks but then you effectively end up with the P39Q which has a much lower performance. You know that adding fuel to the wing would mean removing the wing guns, right? About the same weight. You can of course tweak the performance by removing the two 0.5 in the wings of the P39Q but that would make little difference to the speed. Exactly 14mph per wwiiaircraftperformance.org. I'll take it. Worth noting that the Me109 with 2 x 20mm underwing guns only lost 8mph when carrying them and the 0.5 was a lot smaller so the difference is likely to be no more than 4 mph. 14 mph, look at the tests. I did and it's a fair point you raise. Unfortunately if you want to max out your speed at 385mph that's your choice, but I thought you preferred the 398mph of the P39N1
You have a lot of fantasies about how to change the performance of the P39. New engines, removing armour, adding fuel tanks, deleting equipment with hardly any evidence (because there is next to none that exists) to back up your assertions that such changes were Easy, Obvious, Simple, Straight forward. Yet has been pointed out to you on any number of occasions, tens of thousands of flight engineers, hundreds of engineers/designers at Bell and thousands of pilots many of whom fought and died in the P39. Educated, trained and experienced people who knew every bolt, cable and rivet in the aircraft didn't make those changes. Why, because they knew it couldn't be done. Yet you, with no training or experience know better than all these people I believe the Soviets made almost exactly these changes and defeated the Luftwaffe with it. If you could tell me where the Soviets added a two stage engine into a P39, removed armour from the nose, installed fuel tanks in the wings I and a lot of other people watching this thread would be very interested.
I was an Artificer in the Fleet Air Arm specialising in airframes and engines. This was a training regime that took five years and I know that your statements and assumptions are puerile. I use that word deliberately because if you look up the definition, it fits. There are many others on this forum with infinitely more training and experience than myself in aviation, these are people I listen too and learn from, people who have also told you with supporting evidence that its impossible. Yet you again, know better than all of us. All I know is what is in wwiiaircraftperformance.org, pilots manuals, Vee's for Victory, Soviet history and some hearsay from men like Chuck Yeager. And I don't know what puerile means. Again do some research on the definition it will become clear.
No, we do not need to expand , you need to expand to give evidence to support your massive assumptions, and/or explain why you have such omnipotent knowledge on this subject.
The P39N1 operating at temperatures that were higher than normal acceptable operating levels turned in a good performance but it should be noted that this was at the cost of a very low range and without any payload. This operating at above normal temperatures is no small thing. You can get away with it for a certain period of time but sooner or later it will bite you. P-38, P-47 and P-51 also had higher than acceptable operating temperatures. See my past post in this thread. My statement stands and applies to any performance stats posted on any aircraft of any nation. If you rely on higher than acceptable temperatures then sooner or later it will bite you
The Typhoon another aircraft of a similar era matched the performance of the P39N1 in the early years and comfortably exceed the performance of the P39N1 from early1944 on. It should also be noted that the Typhoon carrying 2,000lb of bombs had a greater range than the P39N1 when clean and about 1,000 miles with drop tanks. Not sure where you are getting this range figure, Typhoon had a huge engine and not a large fuel capacity. Do some research and you will soon find it. And by 1944 the P-39 should have had a two stage engine. We are in your fantasy world again. If you think something should have happened ask yourself this simple question. Why didn't it happen?
There is no doubt that the P39N1 has a better performance than the Typhoon at 25,000 ft but the range of the P39N1 would be close to miserable at that altitude and the chances of a successful interception low, make that very low if your spotted when climbing up. Range of a 120gal P-39N with a 110gal drop tank is about the same as a 1943 P-47 with the same drop tank. Long previous thread about that. Still, not great range but more fuel could be carried internally. A fighter with a 90 gallon internal capacity relying on a 120 gallon external tank, you really think that's a good idea?
You can of course add additional fuel tanks but then you effectively end up with the P39Q which has a much lower performance. You know that adding fuel to the wing would mean removing the wing guns, right? About the same weight. You can of course tweak the performance by removing the two 0.5 in the wings of the P39Q but that would make little difference to the speed. Exactly 14mph per wwiiaircraftperformance.org. I'll take it. Worth noting that the Me109 with 2 x 20mm underwing guns only lost 8mph when carrying them and the 0.5 was a lot smaller so the difference is likely to be no more than 4 mph. 14 mph, look at the tests. I did and it's a fair point you raise. Unfortunately if you want to max out your speed at 385mph that's your choice, but I thought you preferred the 398mph of the P39N1
You have a lot of fantasies about how to change the performance of the P39. New engines, removing armour, adding fuel tanks, deleting equipment with hardly any evidence (because there is next to none that exists) to back up your assertions that such changes were Easy, Obvious, Simple, Straight forward. Yet has been pointed out to you on any number of occasions, tens of thousands of flight engineers, hundreds of engineers/designers at Bell and thousands of pilots many of whom fought and died in the P39. Educated, trained and experienced people who knew every bolt, cable and rivet in the aircraft didn't make those changes. Why, because they knew it couldn't be done. Yet you, with no training or experience know better than all these people I believe the Soviets made almost exactly these changes and defeated the Luftwaffe with it. If you could tell me where the Soviets added a two stage engine into a P39, removed armour from the nose, installed fuel tanks in the wings I and a lot of other people watching this thread would be very interested.
I was an Artificer in the Fleet Air Arm specialising in airframes and engines. This was a training regime that took five years and I know that your statements and assumptions are puerile. I use that word deliberately because if you look up the definition, it fits. There are many others on this forum with infinitely more training and experience than myself in aviation, these are people I listen too and learn from, people who have also told you with supporting evidence that its impossible. Yet you again, know better than all of us. All I know is what is in wwiiaircraftperformance.org, pilots manuals, Vee's for Victory, Soviet history and some hearsay from men like Chuck Yeager. And I don't know what puerile means. Again do some research on the definition it will become clear.
No, we do not need to expand , you need to expand to give evidence to support your massive assumptions, and/or explain why you have such omnipotent knowledge on this subject.