Clearly. Just look at the extra fins and stuff all over the tail section. I have been told ours were the highest houred aircraft - I'll confirm it when I'm back at work. They certainly were the highest cycles flown.
Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
or even 2 x 12.7mm guns if they couldn't get enough 20mm guns.
One 20mm and one .50 in each wing?
Well unless you can stuff the MG 131s into the cowl you now have 3 different calibers (not really that important) but that means 3 different times of flight and 3 different trajectories, also not really that important but makes a total hash out of the claims for guns on the center line
The He 51 used them but they had been used by a large number of aircraft
Curtiss P-6 Hawk used a "slipper" tank?
Hawk III/BF2C-1
there are others.
Glider
Captain
All excellent pointsor even 2 x 12.7mm guns if they couldn't get enough 20mm guns.
One 20mm and one .50 in each wing?
Well unless you can stuff the MG 131s into the cowl you now have 3 different calibers (not really that important) but that means 3 different times of flight and 3 different trajectories, also not really that important but makes a total hash out of the claims for guns on the center line
The He 51 used them but they had been used by a large number of aircraft
View attachment 548812
Curtiss P-6 Hawk used a "slipper" tank?
View attachment 548813
Hawk III/BF2C-1
View attachment 548814
there are others.
Exactly. It was a King Air 200 that OD'd on steroids and fell over the 12,500 pound dividing line that separated small aircraft from transport category. It wasn't alone. Metroliners, Banderantes, CASAs, and Jetstreams were also nibbling at that barrier, so the FAA, in its infinite wisdom, created a new "temporary" in-between category called SFAR 41C, which incorporated almost all of the safety and survivability equipment required in transport category, but not the complicated and heavy triple structural redundancies of the big boys.
This was a boon to the commuter airline industry, allowing a generation of economical small airframes to keep growing without being forced to make the high stakes jump to full-on transport category aircraft.
We (Brockway Air) were the launch customer for the 1900C, and operated the airliner version prototype, UB1, N6667L. The actual Type Certificate prototype, UA1, was configured as a corporate executive luxury transport.
We certainly thrashed the p*ss out of ours, each airframe typically flying two aircrew shifts of 8-14 legs each per day, and overnighting in 2-4 outstations consecutively before overnighting at a maintenance base. Fortunately the bird had a very generous MEL due to system redundancy that allowed us to keep operating with lots of gripes in the logbook.
Maintenance wise, the 1900 ate engine mount donuts (cheap) and air cycle air conditioning machines (ouch). We were approved to do hot sections and propeller work in house, instead of having to ship them out as many operators had to.
But despite all the advantages of apparent economy, we had the highest occupied seat mile operating cost in the industry except the Concorde, largely due to our very short legs, our thin (spelled "EAS")* market, and our intense operational pace. Metroliner and Jetstream operators were close behind us.
Apologies for the digression. This is my home turf.
Cheers,
Wes
*EAS = Essential Air Service, government subsidized service to back country communities that had no other passenger common carrier service. Places even Greyhound wouldn't touch for love nor money.
Last edited:
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
You mean like deleting the wing guns and nose armor from the P-39?
All good mate, mine too, although not on the Ugly.
What about the CG without the nose armor, in a plane whose CG was dangerously aft from the start?
We've been honking that horn at him for months now. I wonder if he's tone deaf and can't hear it?
Cheers,
Wes
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
As I have been saying for months now, move the radios up from the tail cone to behind the pilot above the engine compartment.
Radios and engines were separated as much as possible in that era for a good reason, heat, vibration, static from the ignition, made for short radio life and/or bad reception
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Many photos of P-39s show some or all of the radios under the rear canopy above the engine.
Then why did you suggest that they move it to where, according to you, it already was ?
I have one cutaway drawing of a P-39, it shows the radio just forward of the horizontal stabilizer .
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Yes and if you remove weight from the nose you should move the radios up to near the center of gravity to restore balance.
I think what you think you see in photos, and think is a radio isn't what you think.
In the cutaway drawings the radio appears larger than the area in the canopy behind the pilot.
So even if it could fit, it would for sure completely block any view toward the rear.
So go to the trouble of designing a almost 360 view canopy, then put something behind the pilot that blocks most of his rear view.
I don't think Bell's engineers were that dumb.
Or are you tone deaf to that too ?
In the cutaway drawings the radio appears larger than the area in the canopy behind the pilot.
So even if it could fit, it would for sure completely block any view toward the rear.
So go to the trouble of designing a almost 360 view canopy, then put something behind the pilot that blocks most of his rear view.
I don't think Bell's engineers were that dumb.
Or are you tone deaf to that too ?
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Thanks for the insult. It blocks a little of the rear view but not all. Many P-39s already had the radios above the engine so it obviously worked.
I looked at some P39 schematics .
In some they had both the radio receiver, and the transmitter in the rear compartment.
In a few they had the transmitter still in the rear compartment, but the receiver behind the pilot.
The receiver is about 1/.2 to 1/3 the size of the transmitter.
There's no room for it all behind the pilot, and if you somehow found a way to squeeze it all in, it'd make that 360 view canopy useless.
In some they had both the radio receiver, and the transmitter in the rear compartment.
In a few they had the transmitter still in the rear compartment, but the receiver behind the pilot.
The receiver is about 1/.2 to 1/3 the size of the transmitter.
There's no room for it all behind the pilot, and if you somehow found a way to squeeze it all in, it'd make that 360 view canopy useless.
Glider
Captain
The LMG's in the wing wouldn't have helped much so take them out. However as a personal opinion, the version with the 0.5 in the wing was helpful.
Taking away the nose armour significantly increases the vulnerability of the P39 when attacking bombers, and removing any wing 0.5 makes the P39 far less likely to shoot down the bomber but if that's your choice, feel free.
I noticed the only P-39s I found with the radio behind the pilot's headrest seemed to be Russian P-39s, but didn't check enough pictures to be sure.
I've read some Russian tanks early in the war had receivers only, only company, or platoon CO's had transmitters.
Either they did that because their industry couldn't produce enough transmitters, or it wasn't considered important for the line tanks to be able to talk back, they only needed to hear orders and obey, The CO didn't need advice from them.
Surely the Soviets didn't extend that attitude to aviation too.
I've read some Russian tanks early in the war had receivers only, only company, or platoon CO's had transmitters.
Either they did that because their industry couldn't produce enough transmitters, or it wasn't considered important for the line tanks to be able to talk back, they only needed to hear orders and obey, The CO didn't need advice from them.
Surely the Soviets didn't extend that attitude to aviation too.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
