P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
The P-39N outclimbed any standard production P-38F/G or P-47B/C/D up to
P-39N substantially outclimbed any production P-38F/G or P-47B/C/D up to 26000', above which combat was unlikely. Wouldn't outclimb the P-51B/C.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The P-39N outclimbed any standard production P-38F/G or P-47B/C/D up toSomebody might want to tell that to some test pilots. With the big prop and water injection a P-47 could outclimb a FW 190 at low altitude (lets not even mention high)
the dividing line for turning seemed to be 250mph, below that the FW 190 could out turn the P-47, above that it couldn't .
Of course neither the P-39 or P-40 could do what the P-38 and P-47 could do even if they weren't quite as good as the P-51.
P-39N substantially outclimbed any production P-38F/G or P-47B/C/D up to 26000', above which combat was unlikely. Wouldn't outclimb the P-51B/C.Somebody might want to tell that to some test pilots. With the big prop and water injection a P-47 could outclimb a FW 190 at low altitude (lets not even mention high)
the dividing line for turning seemed to be 250mph, below that the FW 190 could out turn the P-47, above that it couldn't .
Of course neither the P-39 or P-40 could do what the P-38 and P-47 could do even if they weren't quite as good as the P-51.
P-39N substantially outclimbed any production P-38F/G or P-47B/C/D up to 26000', above which combat was unlikely. Wouldn't outclimb the P-51B/C.
Somewhat over simplified to say the least.
I never worked on a P-38 but been in the cockpit and never found it cramped - and I'm 180 Lbs. Then again I didn't have to crawl under the instrument panel.My only memory of working in the cockpit of a P-38 (F-5B) was a rh windscreen change in 1972 and it is not a happy memory. I found the cockpit very cramped (I weighed around 150lb at the time) and the large control spectacle and its mast got in the way all the !@#$% time.
Compare that to other aircraft of the day, this was a norm and again possibly dictated and/ or accepted by the AAF during the design phaseI could not remember where the fuel selectors were in the cockpit so had to check the -1 manual.
The location on the floor below the window winder, radio controls, cockpit lights and in the narrow slot beside and below the seat it does not look at all user friendly to me.
Again, that's your opinion. I've discussed this with several P-38 vets and they never had issues, but then again they had plenty of multi engine time before they were assigned to P-38sI do remember the selectors were connected to the valves by cables and pulleys and that arrangement usually makes the valve a lot stiffer to operate. So my guess is that the P-38 fuel controls were not that user friendly given the tight cockpit, especially if you had to contort your body to reach them.
And I'll agree with that.Seeing that the later P-38 aircraft starting at J-15 had a totally different (much taller) handle that was easier to grab and provided more leverage I would say that my guess is right on the mark.
I think you'll find that assigned pilots, especially fighter pilots WERE NOT flying different aircraft in combat on a regular basis. Combat training was emphasized on the assigned aircraft. Sometimes P-38 drivers would fly B-25s for proficiency.Having a multiple of fuel configurations to remember if not flying the same aircraft all the time was conducive to errors as well.
I could agree there but if you read the Rau report one of the way to mitigate this was to attempt to configure before reaching the combat zone - not the ideal situation.Having to reduce power when changing off drop tanks while you are being shot at is also not what I would call "user friendly".
And the P-51 was designed and built 3 years later.The P-51 fuel selector on the other hand is in an easy to access position and the valve is directly connected to the handle by a shaft so there is nothing in the system to increase the torque the pilot must apply to turn the valve from detent to detent.
Ergonomics (in referring to aircraft cockpits) wasn't even in dictionary in 1937, Again, I think many miss the point that the P-38 (like many aircraft of the day) was designed for function with little consideration to the pilot or "ergonomics." Additionally it was very likely that the cockpit configuration was dictated and/ or accepted by the customer at design acceptance. These decisions were many times made by people not qualified to do so....And the application of what is now called ergonimics to make fuel selectors easy to operate etc and by putting all the controls used during take-off and landing in close proximity - unlike the Brits and the P-38 (where that !#$ obtrusive handle that was such a pain when changing the RH windscreen was the flap lever).
After which your fast climbing P-39 has about 55 gallons of fuel left. And this is from take-off. Operational radius is ?????
Fastest climbing plane in the world isn't any good if it can't reach enemy airspace and return.
P-39N substantially outclimbed any production P-38F/G or P-47B/C/D up to 26000', above which combat was unlikely. Wouldn't outclimb the P-51B/C.
Somebody might want to tell that to some test pilots. With the big prop and water injection a P-47 could outclimb a FW 190 at low altitude (lets not even mention high)
the dividing line for turning seemed to be 250mph, below that the FW 190 could out turn the P-47, above that it couldn't .
Shortround, great stuff. What is your source for this information sir? Does it give altitude(s)?
Of course neither the P-39 or P-40 could do what the P-38 and P-47 could do even if they weren't quite as good as the P-51.
With 120gal internal the radius was about like a Thunderbolt, 250-300mile radius. If each have a 110gal drop tank, the P-47 radius is about 375mi, the P-39 is about 475mi. These are before any reserves for combat or landing, but comparable.After which your fast climbing P-39 has about 55 gallons of fuel left. And this is from take-off. Operational radius is ?????
Fastest climbing plane in the world isn't any good if it can't reach enemy airspace and return.
The pilots who received the first Thunderbolts in England were dismayed at the lack of climb as compared to the SpitIX they had been flying. More than 1000fpm less than the Spit.I would not make this statement too closely to Hub Zemke or Dick Bong if I were you.
The pilots who received the first Thunderbolts in England were dismayed at the lack of climb as compared to the SpitIX they had been flying. More than 1000fpm less than the Spit.
Well, in climb, you are probably right. Ruggedness, firepower and initial dive acceleration goes to the
early P-47s. Range on internal fuel 434 mi. vs. 640 mi. I don't really have to explain which one is the
P-47, do I?
Again, I'm no Lightning or Thunderbolt hater, but facts are facts. In hindsight I think most would agree that the AAF would have been miles ahead to develop the P-51 instead of the P-47 or P-38.
Ah yes, the morphing P-39 that can change to suit the need. Quote the climb with 87 gallons of fuel and then when challanged on range quote range with full internal fuel and at a redicously low air speed or altitude. P-39 will burn 75+ gallons per hour at a cruise speed comparable to a P-47 to a P-47 burning 135 gallons an hour (both planes clean). P-47 holds more than twice the fuel, so no, the radius or range is not the same.With 120gal internal the radius was about like a Thunderbolt, 250-300mile radius. If each have a 110gal drop tank, the P-47 radius is about 375mi, the P-39 is about 475mi. These are before any reserves for combat or landing, but comparable.
I just had an after thought. Robert Johnson said that after the P-47D
received the new propeller (that he believed was worth 1,000 hp.), he was
never again outclimbed by a Spitfire. One must think in terms of angle of
assent. He was referring to a more shallow climb than the Spitfire was
capable of. However, I have read that he claimed his maintenance crew
was able to give him a maximum speed of around 470 out of his P-47D.
Place that in the P-47M category and you get an initial climb of over
3900 fpm.
Technically the P-39N in the test would have held only 57gals since the tested weight was 376# lighter than the listed weight of 7650#. The weight was an allowance of fuel burned in flight giving an average weight for that flight. The British used a "corrected" figure of 95% of the A/C weight for the same purpose.Ah yes, the morphing P-39 that can change to suit the need. Quote the climb with 87 gallons of fuel and then when challanged on range quote range with full internal fuel and at a redicously low air speed or altitude. P-39 will burn 75+ gallons per hour at a cruise speed comparable to a P-47 to a P-47 burning 135 gallons an hour (both planes clean). P-47 holds more than twice the fuel, so no, the radius or range is not the same.
...
Technically the P-39N burns 62gph at normal power/escort height of 25000'. And the P-47 burns 150gph at 25000' and that is from column II, most of not all cruising over Europe in '43 would be at normal power at 190gph. These numbers pretty well match the chart in post #69.
Ergonomics (in referring to aircraft cockpits) wasn't even in dictionary in 1937, Again, I think many miss the point that the P-38 (like many aircraft of the day) was designed for function with little consideration to the pilot or "ergonomics." Additionally it was very likely that the cockpit configuration was dictated and/ or accepted by the customer at design acceptance. These decisions were many times made by people not qualified to do so....
With 120gal internal the (P-39N)