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!
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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!Truth be told, I'm really, REALLY struggling with the concept of anyone hating an inanimate object.
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.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!
I don't buy that.
That shaft only weighed 10 pounds?
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 missionWhether 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; ."
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.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?
P39 - can I ask for your views on thisI've never seen the drive shaft weight referenced.
It was however 10 feet long.
Were these comments valid or just not appreciating a new normal for take off runs?
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.
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 ".Whether you buy it or not doesn't mean it didn't happen.
That bearing just sort of floats on air...
You morons have a problem.
You hate the P-39, but that's not your problem.
When someone posts documentation that the P-39 didn't suck, you go out of your way to invent "design flaws" that never existed.
When people post documentation that you were wrong, you say without evidence that people (such as the AAF flight test reports and designers such as Robert Woods and writers of the time like Martin Caidin and Eugene Miller) were wrong or lying.
Because you "KNOW!"
When asked to produce documentation of your positions, you change the subject or simply state, "I KNOW!"
Had you read ANYTHING about the P-39 structure, including the design analysis I posted, you would clearly see that "the airplane fuselage beam assembly was to all intents and purposes a part of the engine assembly since it was really a crank case extension and acted as a housing and support for the extension drive shaft and independent gear box assembly and propeller."
NONE of you have demonstrated ANY understanding of there P-39 structures. You even missed the fume-proof armor bulkhead that separates the cockpit from the gun compartment.
You don't understand the P-39 because your egos won't allow it.
When presented with documentation you turn off and fall back on "I KNOW!"
I know you.
And I feel sorry for you.
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.When you guys are suggesting how fantastic a Seafire would have been, consider how it compared to a 6 gun Wildcat:
View attachment 541022View attachment 541023
I about got caught by a stall on final in a Piper Cherokee.
Cross wind , turned from base to final a little late, tightened the turn too much to try and line up with the runway.
Horn went off, aircraft shook a little, and I eased out of the bank, put the nose down a little, then lined up late on final.
I almost landed short. A experienced pilot who observed my landing was pretty critical of my performance.
I should have aborted that landing and went around.
That's same scenario has killed a lot of people.
If I had had two people in the rear seat, and luggage, I probably would have not have had enough control authority to ease the bank, or lower the nose.
And I feel sorry for you.
P39 seems to pop up everywhere on this forum, starting streetfights amongst the members. Must be the groundhogs. They are everywhere. Nasty little buggers.