Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The turbochargers were given to the P38 due to politics and scarcity of turbochargers. tHe P38 was a fine plane but was used 2 turbochargers two motors and over twice the materials. The P40 could have used the turbocharger too.Endurance:
If I understand correctly, the plane was submitted as a response to Circular Proposal X-609 - didn't that contain any criteria for endurance?
Turbocharger:
Mounting the turbocharger close to the engine, as was done on the P-38 and bombers, makes for a clean, simple and compact package. The P-39 seemed to provide a great opportunity for this.
I always read about how the mid-engine placement was ideal for the nose mounted cannon and a streamlined profile, but I can't help but feel that turbocharger placement was a great beneficiary of this layout.
P-39 vs. P-40 statistics:
Do we know how the P-39 compared to the P-40 statistically?
- Early war years in Pacific theatre.
- In Soviet Union.
One advantage on muddy or sleet filled airstrips was that the tail of the P39 was high and dry. The P40 and all other fighters would literally get frozen in the mud or have sand dirt and extra water on takeoff cause issues. I saw on Hustons film in the Aleutians in 1942 that P39s could easily albeit very slowly plow down the run way and takeoff. Russians also liked the tricycle gear for this reason. They also had an easier time with cold weather takeoffs with the liquid cooled not radial engines. The radials would actually need heating elements prodded in the front of of the motor and wait until it was warm enough to ignite. The antifreeze in the P39 would allow a subzero start up and go with the pilot prying open a frozen door. Prying open an iced canopy I gather would be more difficult than walking into the side door.Why did the P-39 perform, or seem to perform, so much more poorly than the P-40 - particularly in the early war years?
Both were V-1710 powered, sans turbocharger with single stage/single speed supercharger.
I know the P-39 had short endurance.
But what else?
The turbochargers were given to the P38 due to politics and scarcity of turbochargers. tHe P38 was a fine plane but was used 2 turbochargers two motors and over twice the materials. The P40 could have used the turbocharger too.
The turbochargers were given to the P38 due to politics and scarcity of turbochargers. tHe P38 was a fine plane but was used 2 turbochargers two motors and over twice the materials. The P40 could have used the turbocharger too.
Don't fall to the 'not enough turbos' myth - XP-39 turbo installation was awful from drag standpoint, the XP-39 being unable to beat 350 mph mark as designed. Coupled with USAAC need to get a modern fighters in short time, turbo installation was deleted for on the XP-39B, and altitude-rated V-1710 was installed. On the P-38 turbo at least worked, and with less drag issues.
USA was not the only power to go with 2-engined fighter, the P-38 being an actually useful machine, with excellent performance when compared with US fighters of the time, and vs. many foreign fighters.
Granted, the P-40 with turbo would've been interesting. Unfortunately, the (X)P-40H never materialized.
Tomorrow,
I'm unfamiliar with the XP-40H. I found nothing on google. Pass a link if you have one please!
Cheers,
Biff
The designations P-40H and P-40I were never assigned to any Curtiss
aircraft. Neither designation was assigned to any projects that I am
aware of either.
Issue with the P38 is that it got to the party so late. It missed 1942 in the Pacific and Nort Africa and the Russian front. The battles where the Allies won the war. P38, Vought Corsair, Hellcat, P51, P47 were still in development re-development, flight testing etc. Theier tardy designs got alot of Kamikazes and novice German pilots who never even got a shot off if they had machine guns at all. In 1942 the US and Australian and New Zealand pilots had almost no combat experience and less than oe equal to 40 hours of flight time.Tomorrow,
I'm unfamiliar with the XP-40H. I found nothing on google. Pass a link if you have one please!
Cheers,
Biff
Tomorrow - that's hilarious
At pg. 162 of 'Vee's for victory', it is said that XP-4H was designation for the never produced variant of the P-40E.
It is said? Tomo, is there any indication WHO "it is said" by? Is there any elaboration
on the subject in 'Vee's for Victory'?
It is said? Tomo, is there any indication WHO "it is said" by? Is there any elaboration on the subject in 'Vee's for Victory'?
My (limited) understanding of the impetus behind the mid engine design was to reduce the pitch inertia by concentrating the mass toward the center.
We do know that the P-40 fuselage could mount a turbo system, as the P-60 used an early model (P-40D or P-40E) fuselage.
But the P-40 was not designed to use a turbo, though a proposal for a later model turbo version was made.
This is the problem with a turbo in a single engine plane. No matter what you start out with you end up with a P-47.