Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
...
What if we remove the cowl guns and hub cannon completely, moved the cockpit forward and installed a fuel tank between the cockpit and engine.
ave 4 0.5" MGs in the fuselage sides, the ammunition boxes under the fuel compartment behind the pilot, synchronised to fire through the propeller arc.
Some suggested 2 stage engines for the P-39, but a 2 speed drive for the supercharger would help some, as would improvements to the supercharger itself. Have the 7.48 and 9.60 gear ratios. Should maintain the performance down low, and add a little up higher.
The key issue with large fuel cell in front of cockpit is the same as having a larges supply of ammunition - namely a large CG change as the fuel is consumed... suspect stability is seriously affected and the P-39 already had those issues.
The key issue with large fuel cell in front of cockpit is the same as having a larges supply of ammunition - namely a large CG change as the fuel is consumed... suspect stability is seriously affected and the P-39 already had those issues.
Re P-63 - lack of internal fuel was one of major things that turned down any USAF desire for it, so it was not as good as realistically possible. It was also much draggier than the earlier P-51 - 20% greater Cd0, and with barely smaller Cd0 than the P-39. Plus - external HMGs despite such a thick big wing?
Wing of P-39, -D to -N (similar on the -C and -Q), the '6-cell' fuel tank is visible, as is the place for LMGs and their ammo boxes; ditch the LMgs and ammo and put some fuel tanks there?