I used to think the P39 was a cool airplane. I'm a changed man now, and have learned to embrace my inner bigot. Thanks, Expert and JMCalli!
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
Maybe we could come together as a group and admit when we became haters, I wasn't aware at the time but I think it was when the 1971 Airfix catalogue was printed, I was still in my "box top art" phase.
Last edited:
Whether you buy it or not doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Shorts Aircraft since 1900, C.H.Barnes (Putnam, 1989 revised edition):
"The Martlesham test pilots were impressed by its good handling qualities, but considered its take-off and landing runs rather too long in view of unavoidable future growth in the weight of the full-size Stirling; they recommended an increase of 3 degrees in wing incidence, which had purposely been kept to the optimum (31/2 degrees) for minimum cruising drag, but tooling up on the Stirling production line had already passed the point at which any such change could be made in the wing-fuselage junction design without altering the entire bomb suspension structure; quite apart from the cost of so radical a design change, the delay in delivery would have been totally unacceptable. So Gouge adopted the compromise solution of adding 3 degrees to the ground angle by lengthening the main landing gear."
It's in multiple entries on the Short S.31 half scale aircraft, even on wikipedia:
"There was one notable criticism amongst the feedback from pilots, being that the length of the take off run was considered to be excessive and that improvements would be desirable. Fixing this required that the angle of the wing to be increased for take off; however, if the wing itself was modified, the aircraft would fly with a nose-down attitude while cruising (as in the Armstrong Whitworth Whitley); making this change was also complicated by the fact that work on the production line had already reached an advanced stage. Thus, Shorts lengthened the undercarriage struts to tilt the nose up on take-off, leading to its spindly gear which in turn contributed to many take off and landing accidents."
Were these comments valid or just not appreciating a new normal for take off runs? By all accounts I have read later Lancasters just laboured up in the air especially when carrying something like an Upkeep, Tallboy and Grandslam or even a normal load out for a very long mission
Shortround6
Major General
I could be wrong but the Stirling dated from the era of very short RAF airfields, even for bombers which lead to that whole catapult the Manchester scheme.
Flying boats were built because they had, in theory, nearly unlimited runway lengths in order to get up to take-off speed.
The Poor Stirling may have been caught by timing and changing operational environments.
Couldn't get out of the pea patch RAF airfields during early development and was replaced by aircraft that needed much larger airfields. Stirlings capabilities did increase with the larger airfields (higher gross weight) but it was too late to change the basic airframe. Getting both production lines bombed sure didn't help early deployment either so there was little opertunity for it to make a name for itself before the Halifax and Lancaster showed up.
1st thousand bomber raid on Germany 30/31st of May 1942.
88 Stirling heavy bombers
131 Halifax heavy bombers
73 Lancaster heavy bombers
46 Manchester medium bombers
Plus all the other odds and sods.
Had the Factories not been bombed (or hit?) dozens or scores more Stirlings may have been available at that point in time and the Stirling may have had at least a few weeks/months in the limelight and not been competing with aircraft that were around two years newer?
Flying boats were built because they had, in theory, nearly unlimited runway lengths in order to get up to take-off speed.
The Poor Stirling may have been caught by timing and changing operational environments.
Couldn't get out of the pea patch RAF airfields during early development and was replaced by aircraft that needed much larger airfields. Stirlings capabilities did increase with the larger airfields (higher gross weight) but it was too late to change the basic airframe. Getting both production lines bombed sure didn't help early deployment either so there was little opertunity for it to make a name for itself before the Halifax and Lancaster showed up.
1st thousand bomber raid on Germany 30/31st of May 1942.
88 Stirling heavy bombers
131 Halifax heavy bombers
73 Lancaster heavy bombers
46 Manchester medium bombers
Plus all the other odds and sods.
Had the Factories not been bombed (or hit?) dozens or scores more Stirlings may have been available at that point in time and the Stirling may have had at least a few weeks/months in the limelight and not been competing with aircraft that were around two years newer?
Possibly the interaction of military and political decisions and comments. Saying the take off run is too short is the same as saying the runways must be made longer, but making lots of longer runways is a political decision. The local BC airfield to me started to be developed in 1938 and became operational in 1941. I think the Stirling and the Whitley were caught in this limbo and suffered because of it, by the time of the 1000 bomber raid in May 1942 there were many very long runways in UK and 60,000 people constructing more.
Glider
Captain
P39 - can I ask for your views on this
Well, it depends on several things. What, in 1938 - 1940 was considered a "too long" take-off or landing run? This gets into the territory of contemporary airfield design, which is a different topic altogether, but remember, the judgement was made whilst the S.31 was under trial by the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment, which was designed to work as an evaluation of equipment and to make recommendations based on the status quo, not just a bunch of pilots voicing their opinions. Clearly changes were made to the Stirling's undercarriage as a result - take a look at a schematic and it is easy to see the added extension to the original layout.
No. 218 (Gold Coast) Squadron 1936-1945: Image (wordpress.com)
I think you might be right. The British underwent a massive airfield building programme in 1940/1941 and the standard "Type A (Bomber) Dispersed Airfield", with its lengthy concrete runways, dispersal pans and triangular layout became a familiar sight around the country. Mind you, everyone in aviation, not just the RAF was playing catch up during the late 30s in terms of the new technology and how aircraft design was changing everything.
This is RAF East Fortune in Scotland, completed in late 1941 and opened in 1942; typical of the new style of airfield being built in large numbers round the country at the time.
GregP
Major
An Allison F3R (V-1710-39) came in at 1335 lbs. The E4R (V-1710-35: same power section and auxiliary section as F3R ... just a new nosecase) came in at 1425 lbs. I can tell you from personal experience that the remote gearbox used in the P-39 / P-63 is heavier than the nosecase on an F-series engine. A friend overhauled one for the CAF.
So, the driveshaft, center bearing support and everything associated with it weigh something like 50 - 60 lbs. It isn't heavy by any means. Max it could weigh might be 65 lbs. or so.
So, the driveshaft, center bearing support and everything associated with it weigh something like 50 - 60 lbs. It isn't heavy by any means. Max it could weigh might be 65 lbs. or so.
Simon Thomas
Senior Airman
Sorry I should have been more specific. I was referring to your comment "Part of the problem with the Stirling was that construction of the prototype was begun before trials with the small scale aircraft had been completed, which meant Short didn't foresee that the wing's angle of incidence was too shallow ".
You are accusing Shorts / Gouge of getting the angle of incidence wrong. That is what I don't agree with. As I said, Gouge knew what he was doing. If Gouge was able to change the wing incidence like RAE wanted, it would have flown at a crazy nose down angle like the Whitley with the corresponding increase in drag.
The compromise solution was a reasonable outcome to an unnecessary request. Maybe making the retract mechanism stronger would have helped with the many failures - although again the weight would have increased.
Admiral Beez
Major
It may or may not better than the Wildcat, but I'd like to see the first Seafire enter service in 1941 from the onset with folding wings, modified (strength and oleo) undercarriage and greater internal fuel.
Last edited:
I had that happen to me in Cherokee on one of my cross country solos during my flight training. Total pucker factor.
I have been really busy, and am now just getting caught up on this thread. This thread is so exhausting and tiresome. But one thing is for sure...
I am getting really tired of this bickering and insults. If I see one more person call someone else a moron, or some other insult that member will be sent on a vacation to cool off.
A heated debate is fine, but conduct it like an adult, or don't do it all. Kapeesh?
I am getting really tired of this bickering and insults. If I see one more person call someone else a moron, or some other insult that member will be sent on a vacation to cool off.
A heated debate is fine, but conduct it like an adult, or don't do it all. Kapeesh?
P39 seems to pop up everywhere on this forum, starting streetfights amongst the members. Must be the groundhogs. They are everywhere. Nasty little buggers.
The Spitfire evolved throughout the war because the airframe had development growth, so did the Me109, FW190, P47 and especially the P51, the P39 had zero growth potential because the planes design was fundamentally flawed, you can sugar coat it as much as you want but everyone involved with running the air war new it, why waste time and effort on it when better designs were already in service?.
Shortround6
Major General
Larry Bell and boys sure screwed up when they went to all the trouble to design and build the P-63 when all they had to do was tweak the P-39 (take the armor out of the nose and move the radio), 
Let's change the forum's name from WW2Aircraft.net to P39 Hijacks The Forum.net
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Oddly enough, in the P-39N pilot's manual (dated February 1943), they seemed to be under the impression that the front armor was needed...
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
