P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
The slightly aft CG after ammunition was expended did not affect approach or landing. Or any normal maneuvers for that matter, just post-stall. P-39 was as safe as any other AAF fighter.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The slightly aft CG after ammunition was expended did not affect approach or landing. Or any normal maneuvers for that matter, just post-stall. P-39 was as safe as any other AAF fighter.I'm beginning to wonder if you do.
I'm pointing out that .30 caliber proof armor is minimum armor, no aircraft I'm aware of carried a smaller caliber weapon, while almost any axis aircraft you would meet ( with the exception of the Ki-43 early in the war) had additional guns that were bigger than .30 cal.
So just what good did the armor do?
What Larry Bell did IMO was create a aircraft that was so different from other aircraft it was dangerous.
Right at the end of a combat mission when the ammo is low or out, and the pilots flying skills aren't the best because he's probably dog tired.
Most aircraft handle the best at the end of the flight, if there's no battle damage, lower total weight, lower stalling speed, etc.
But in the P-39's case that's when it's most sensitive, with close to aft CG.
Pull that turn to final a little too tight, or rough, and you'll end up in a stall/spin that'll take more altitude to recover from than you've got.
Most aircraft destroyed in combat in the WW2 era would get no investigation under most conditions.
The pilot, if he survived, sometimes might have a clue. His squadron friends might see it, but are likely too busy with the mission, or their own survival , to really concentrate on exactly what happened.
And even if they could find a secure crash site, no one had the time to do a complete forensic investigation on a smoking hole in the ground, like modern crash investigations .
I feel like this is a waste of time trying to have a adult conversation with someone who evidently has no knowledge beyond what he reads, and has no real experience with anything mechanical.
It wouldn't need to. What's going to happen when a hollow tube carrying the torque from 1150 HP in walls .020" thick at 3,000 RPM, carefully balanced and tuned to avoid resonances, is holed or furrowed by a 7.7MM round, upsetting all that balancing and tuning? I suspect the shaft would shake itself loose, possibly ripping the intermediate coupling loose from its supporting structure.
Actually, it is. Imagine you're in a dogfight, pulling 3,000 RPM and all the MP the supercharger will give you, plus fluctuating G and gyroscopic loads from your gyrations, and your reduction gearbox is disabled, suddenly unloading that engine ri
The slightly aft CG after ammunition was expended did not affect approach or landing. Or any normal maneuvers for that matter, just post-stall. P-39 was as safe as any other AAF fighter.
BULLPUCKY! Even a docile, user friendly airplane like a Cessna 150 or Piper Warrior, or even a Beech T34 stalls more suddenly, more violently and less predictably when loaded to its aft CG limit. I used to explore this with my students, knowing that most of their future recreational and/or professional flying would be done in aft loaded planes, unlike the forward loaded scenario that prevails in training flights. We would do a careful W&B calculation, then ballast the aft baggage space to put the CG right at the aft limit at the worst case scenario for the flight, as some planes shift CG aft with fuel burn. Sometimes this would entail calculating how far forward of the aft limit we would have to set the CG to not go out of limit during the time of the lesson. A good exercise for a student who you know is going to take the family out for a ride as soon as the ink is dry on their license.The slightly aft CG after ammunition was expended did not affect approach or landing. Or any normal maneuvers for that matter, just post-stall. P-39 was as safe as any other AAF fighter.
Regarding post 898, Graugeist, I assume you're just being sarcastic
P-61A:
Eliminate the gunner and the turret. Put the pilot and radar operator under a tandem canopy, that is jump right to the P-61E configuration. Getting rid of the turret and gunner would probably save close to a ton in empty weight, twenty percent in zero-lift drag, and months in development
I would have liked to have seen the Spit reach it's full potential. The interim models were needed, MkV-IX-XIV but I can't help but think the blooding of the spit in 1941-42 by the likes of the FW190A would not have happened if the MkIII running 2 stage Merlin XX's could have been made.
The slightly aft CG after ammunition was expended did not affect approach or landing. Or any normal maneuvers for that matter, just post-stall. P-39 was as safe as any other AAF fighter.
Biff, if I took any of this personal then I wouldn't continue to post on this board.P39Expert,
If the P-39 was as safe as other fighters why did it have a reputation for tumbles / squirrely handling, or why did the USAAF do a spin demo film on it AND show one crash?
Hint: the crash was at the end as a punctuation point to the novice fighter pilots, a poke in the chest if you will.
Just because a person repeats something DOESN'T make it true no matter how many times it's said.
Also realize there are actual experienced pilots on here who can and do refute erroneous statements so please don't take it personal.
V/R,
Biff
It wasn't, because training command P39s were ballasted to keep CG away from the limits of the envelope, and didn't need as much aft mounted radio gear as combat zone planes did. This still didn't keep it from acquiring a "weirdo" rep amongst the pilots, as its ergonomics, its "feel", its handling, and especially its operating speeds were so different from the AT6s they were used to. Chuck Yeager was that rare nugget: a gifted "natural" from the get-go, who had the analytical mind, the disciplined approach, the confidence, and the reflexes and vision to quickly master a plane, and once past its quirks, appreciate its potential. Not a representative sample. I'm sure he appreciated its "hotrod" nature vs the Texan he'd been flying, and revelled in it, rather than be intimidated by it.If they were as dangerous as some on here claim then their role as trainers would have been curtailed. It wasn't.
Yes I really do wonder. Half of them went to the Soviets where they won the war and the other half were used as trainers here. And ANY combat plane would be a major step up from an AT-6 Texan.It wasn't, because training command P39s were ballasted to keep CG away from the limits of the envelope, and didn't need as much aft mounted radio gear as combat zone planes did. This still didn't keep it from acquiring a "weirdo" rep amongst the pilots, as its ergonomics, its "feel", its handling, and especially its operating speeds were so different from the AT6s they were used to. Chuck Yeager was that rare nugget: a gifted "natural" from the get-go, who had the analytical mind, the disciplined approach, the confidence, and the reflexes and vision to quickly master a plane, and once past its quirks, appreciate its potential. Not a representative sample. I'm sure he appreciated its "hotrod" nature vs the Texan he'd been flying, and revelled in it, rather than be intimidated by it.
Ever wonder why so many P39s were stateside as fighter trainers when so many fighters were needed in combat theatres? They weren't actually optimum for the job, as their handling characteristics were so different from the advanced trainers and frontline fighters the students had come from and would go to, but they were available stateside, while every P40, and later P47 and P51, was urgently needed for combat. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
No sarcasm - I just recently watched some Luftwaffe guncam footage and in one segment, a Bf110G-2 closed in a B-24 and tore it apart, literally. The inboard engine on the starboard wing tumbled free after cannon hits. It was horrible to see.
There's other instances, but this shows that an aircraft under fire is subject to damage - in some cases, catastrophic damage.
while every P40, and later P47 and P51, was urgently needed for combat. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
The AT-6 wasn't exactly a docile a/c.Yes I really do wonder. Half of them went to the Soviets where they won the war and the other half were used as trainers here. And ANY combat plane would be a major step up from an AT-6 Texan.
Tandem-seating has proved over and over as draggier than side by side (see Hawker Hunter, Skyraider, and many more). The ideal in sub-sonic speeds are quite corpulent fuselages unless we are talking laminar flow, at transonic speeds.
Yes I really do wonder. Half of them went to the Soviets where they won the war and the other half were used as trainers here. And ANY combat plane would be a major step up from an AT-6 Texan.
You can keep grasping for any straw and rumor to somehow make the P-39 a deathtrap, but in reality it was a very serviceable combat plane. Do you consider the F6F Hellcat to be a good plane? Scourge of the Japanese and kings of the Pacific. Shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other plane. Look at the attached graph (wwiiaircraftperformance.org) with P-39N performance overlayed in red. Pretty competitive, no? And consider that the P-39N was out of production before the Hellcat had it's first combat with the USN.